| www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Corinna Vinschen wrote: [SNIP] > When a file is exclusivly locked by another application, then the > access to the ACL is entirely impossible. So we don't know anything > about the actual ACL. Cygwin's stat() returns with the POSIX permission > bits set to 000 in this case (which is still somewhat unfortunate, but > at least reflects the current situation from the processes' perspective). > > So in some way the '+' is as wrong as the ' ', because we just don't > know. I understand Eric's idea of adding a '?' indicator for this > case, I just don't think it really helps the user. How about ls simply displaying "----------+"? I think that's a reasonably indication that "no, we can't determine the permissions" but "yes, this file does have some permissions" (or it wouldn't be locked). > Whatever the result of this discussion is, the most important part is, > that the failing call to acl() shouldn't result in ls printing an error > message in this case. Agreed. /Lasse -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |