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/