FYI, as folks have talked about the benefits of being chmod-like, the
Solaris chmod ACL syntax is (ignoring the indexed options):
A- Remove all ACEs, replace with equivalent of file mode
A-${ACLSPEC}Remove ACEs specified by ${ACLSPEC}
A=${ACLSPEC}Replace the entire ACL with
>
> Doesn't seem ambiguous to me at all. If you don't say "-negative", you
> aren't messing with the negative ACLs; If you do, you're leaving the
> positive ACLs alone. I'm pretty sure most folks are not even aware of
> negative ACLs anyway, and those who use them intentionally are (I'm
> guessing)
On 17 Dec 2008, at 09:02, Felix Frank wrote:
In all, with ACLs having one degree of higher complexity than unix
permissions, there probably is no way to make this syntax 100%
intuitively akin to chmod's.
Thus, the original proposal to use postfix +/- might communicate the
distinction?
Pers
On 12/17/2008 04:02 AM, Felix Frank wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Erik Dalén wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 03:09, Stephen Joyce
wrote:
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 gue
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Erik Dalén wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 03:09, Stephen Joyce wrote:
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
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 03:09, Stephen Joyce wrote:
> 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.
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
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:
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
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
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" wrote:
> Would it make sense to say f'rinstance "+w" rather than "w+" to keep
> it
> similar to "chow
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
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, i
13 matches
Mail list logo
