> ls is fixable. Possibly by extending "ls -l" to show acl's or at
> least indicate in some way that acl's are present. The latter may
> be preferable to avoid script incompatibilities, sonething like this:
> Arw-r--r-- 1 helge helge 140 Feb 9 1999 .bash_profile
> The 'A' indicates that acl(s) are present, the user may then use
> something like "ls --acl" and get the full acl information.
The much lamented POSIX spec (P1003.2c) used
-rw-r--r--+ 1 helge helge 140 Feb 9 1999 .bash_profile
^ note the plus sign
figuring that most shell scripts wouldn't pay much attention to
that particular position in the output. With the "A" scheme
suggested above you'd have trouble discriminating directories
and files.
POSIX specified a special program to see file ACLs. In Irix we
used "ls -D", because it was available. We rationalized the choice
by saying it stood for Descretionary Access Control. I personally
dislike commands with spelled out options, but then I grew up
using a TeleType, where every keystroke hurt.
--Casey Schaufler voice: (650) 933-1634 casey@sgi.com fax: (650) 933-0170
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/