Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Lasse Subject: Re: ls when acl() is busy Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:18:32 +0200 Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <062820050324.16993.42C0C2EB00001A5B0000426122007610640A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net> <85slz0dztf.fsf@pi.meyering.net> <20050630084132.GA5026@calimero.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) In-Reply-To: <20050630084132.GA5026@calimero.vinschen.de> Cc: bug-coreutils@gnu.org X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/