The provided patch adds the ability to add or subtract rights from an acl
element, e.g. a+ or a- to add or subtract the administer bit from an acl,
like fs sa . shadow a+
would give shadow the a bit in addition to whatever bits he already had.
It's user-visible. Before we go anywhere with it,
Would it make sense to say f'rinstance +w rather than w+ to keep it
similar to chown? Seems like having two different ways to accomplish
such similar ideas is just the sort of thing that keeps the WIMP crowd
shaking their heads at the command-liners. -- todd_le...@unc.edu
On 12/16/2008 01:42 PM,
I suggested the exact same thing (and forgot to CC the list).
I know that reusing the chown interface would make fs a little more comfortable
for some of my users.
-scott
- Todd M Lewis uto...@email.unc.edu wrote:
Would it make sense to say f'rinstance +w rather than w+ to keep
it
On 16 Dec 2008, at 18:42, Derrick J Brashear wrote:
The provided patch adds the ability to add or subtract rights from
an acl element, e.g. a+ or a- to add or subtract the administer bit
from an acl, like fs sa . shadow a+
would give shadow the a bit in addition to whatever bits he already
Simon Wilkinson wrote:
I suspect the use of postfix notation is due to the behaviors of
the existing command parser that makes up the basis of all of the
afs command set.
Derrick can correct me if I'm wrong.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
What's the semantics for negative ACLs? For example,
fs sa . system:authuser rl
fs sa . badguy +rl -negative
I'm guessing that'll give badguy negative rl bits.
Should 'fs sa . badguy -rl' implicitly give him negative rl bits, if
he doesn't have anything already?
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:42
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Tom Maher wrote:
What's the semantics for negative ACLs? For example,
fs sa . system:authuser rl
fs sa . badguy +rl -negative
I'm guessing that'll give badguy negative rl bits.
Makes sense to me.
Should 'fs sa . badguy -rl' implicitly give him negative rl bits, if
he
