Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-ID:	<392C242A.52452785@vinschen.de>
Date:	Wed, 24 May 2000 20:49:14 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna AT vinschen DOT de>
Reply-To:	cygdev <cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686)
X-Accept-Language:	de, en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	"cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com" <cygwin-developers AT hotpop DOT com>
Subject:	Re: call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?
References:	<4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20000524132333 DOT 00e5d910 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <392C173E DOT 704F5DCD AT vinschen DOT de> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20000524140935 DOT 00e4e510 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <20000524141933 DOT A4308 AT cygnus DOT com>

Chris Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:14:59PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
> >I'm left with the impression that the best option is to use the
> >writable_directory() call when ntsec is not enabled and skip it when
> >it is.  Sounds to me like it wreaks havoc on proper ntsec function
> >but gets as close to UNIX behavior as possible for nontsec.  If this
> >is indeed a valid synopsis of the pros/cons of this case, my high level
> >view of this conditionalize the use of writable_directory.  Did I miss
> >some important point?
> 
> I think that I agree with Corinna.  I've always had reservations about
> this call, too.  It's imposing UNIX permissions on NT and limiting
> cygwin's ability to do things that a normal windows program can do.
> 
> I think that this is a gratuitous consistency and that it should be
> eliminated.  If people start noticing problems then we can always put
> it back.

I want to suggest that I change the function to return always `TRUE'.
The actual code can be preserved by a `#if 0' directive for a
later (ab)use or until we decide to remove it completely.

Corinna

- Raw text -