On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >
> > >>���4)�Access�should�not�be�further�restricted�for�the�owner�of�the
> > >>������mount,�even�if�permission�bits,�uid�or�gid�would�suggest
> > >>������otherwise
> > >�
> > >�Why?��Surely�you�want�to�prevent�writing�to�files�which�don't�have�the
> > >�writable�bit�set?��A�filesystem�may�also�create�append-only�files�-
> > >�and�all�users�including�the�mount�owner�should�be�bound�by�that.
> >
> > That�will�depend�on�the�situation.�If�the�user�is�mounting�a�tgz�owned
> > by�himself,�FUSE�should�default�to�being�a�convenient�hex-editor.
>
> If the user wants to edit a read-only file in a tgz owned by himself,
> why can he not _chmod_ the file and _then_ edit it?
>
> That said, I would _usually_ prefer that when I enter a tgz, that I
> see all component files having the same uid/gid/permissions as the tgz
> file itself - the same as I'd see if I entered a zip file.
As you say _usually_, even you admit that sometimes you would want the
real owner/permissions to be shown. And that is the point Miklos is
trying to make I believe: it should be configurable not hard set to only
one which is what I understand HCH wants.
There are uses for both. For example today I was updating the tar ball
which is used to create the var file system for a new chroot. I certainly
want to see corretly setup owner/permissions when I look into that tar
ball using a FUSE fs...
Best regards,
Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
