Jamie Gennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 11:20, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Well, the reason against this is that translators are really just
> > mount points, and existing ls does *not* treat them differently.
>
> That's true for some translators, but others are used
On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 11:20, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Well, the reason against this is that translators are really just
> mount points, and existing ls does *not* treat them differently.
That's true for some translators, but others are used more like devices,
which does show up in ls output.
Ognyan Kulev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Niels Möller wrote:
> > By the way, what's a good "ls -F"-indicator character for translators?
> > `&' (process), `!' (action), or `?' (oddity)? Perhaps active and
> > passive translators should be displayed differently.
>
> My favorite is `&' -- sounds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels Möller) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > Normally (without special flags) you should always follow the
> > translator, and you would never see the => syntax.
>
> What is "special"? ls normally follows symlinks silently, but ls -F
> and ls
Niels Möller wrote:
> By the way, what's a good "ls -F"-indicator character for translators?
> `&' (process), `!' (action), or `?' (oddity)? Perhaps active and
> passive translators should be displayed differently.
My favorite is `&' -- sounds like the file has extra (&, +)
functionality/behavio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Normally (without special flags) you should always follow the
> translator, and you would never see the => syntax.
What is "special"? ls normally follows symlinks silently, but ls -F
and ls -l shows some information about symlinks. Are these par
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> If LC_MESSAGE specifics a POSIX locale then the default behaviour should be
> whatever POSIX specifics. So I suppose we could default to printing our
> specific stuff if it is not a POSIX locale...
>
> Personally I think it's silly to have two progr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> > Why is chauth better than chauthor?
>
> Same reason why we have chown instead of chowner, I guess. But maybe
> users would get confused with the auth translator, in that case chauthor
> would be a better name.
We have chown because the syscall i
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 08:17:50PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Should this also apply to symlinks? Or should the default behaviour be
> > used.
>
> I think the translator for symlinks shouldn't be shown or it should
> be an option.
None of the special translators like /hurd/symlink as li
On Tuesday 12 February 2002 19:04, you wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> >> - Print the "unknown permission bits" (what is the official name
> >> for this?).
> >
> > Well, I would say it's the "nobody" bits or maybe the "anonymous"
> > user
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 07:37:26PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Yes, Marco Gerards suggested that we could print the PID of the active
> translator. But I still have my doubts about this. But yeah, active
> translators should be handled in a similar way I think.
You can do what fsysopts for
* Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 04:30:36PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[snip]
>> And when I am done with that, I will move to fix GNU sh-utils (id,
>> and all that).
> Note that we have `ids' in the Hurd. And id is specified by POSIX,
> so we have to make sure we only ext
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 04:30:36PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> I am currently working on adding some support for the flags that we support.
Way to go, Alfred!
> author bit with chown (chown owner:group:author?), and will probably implement
> the chauth (I think thats a better name then chau
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
>> - Print the "unknown permission bits" (what is the official name
>> for this?).
> Well, I would say it's the "nobody" bits or maybe the "anonymous"
> user bits or the "no ID" bits. We should figure out one standard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> - Print the "unknown permission bits" (what is the official name
> for this?).
Well, I would say it's the "nobody" bits or maybe the "anonymous" user
bits or the "no ID" bits. We should figure out one standard name to
use.
> - Print the aut
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> James Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Taking a brief look at fth.defth it looks like each node can have
>> an author, do any tools currently support getting/setting this
>> value?
> I don't think so. We need a chauthor program for GNU fileutils.
Funny th
Taking a brief look at fth.defth it looks like each node can have an
author, do any tools currently support getting/setting this value?
=
James Morrison
University of Waterloo
Computer Science - Digital Hardware
2A co-op
http://hurd.dyndns.org
Anyone refering this as 'Open Source
17 matches
Mail list logo
