Gary Winiger wrote: > Kais writes: >> Given the non obviousness of the choices made here, and the thought >> process that went in converging to the changes added to the >> case, this case is derailed. >> >> Mark accepted to prepare the draft opinion to be submitted for vote. > > Presumably the draft opinion will answer the set of questions > the project team has not yet answered: > > Such as why is sys_devices required to run the view commands? > Why are the modes restricted?
Assuming you mean the modes of the device files the answer to this should be obvious. This project does not deliver the devices nor does it set the access policy for them. It just uses already existing devices on the system it is them that has set their file permission modes and them that require sys_devices even for "view commands". I believe the project team did attempt to answer that. -- Darren J Moffat
