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/
