On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 05:13:33PM +0200, Branko ??ibej wrote:
> Well, the first thought and concern is that this is extremely
> Unix-centric -- but I guess you're aware of that. :-) The second thing
> that comes to mind is that, to make this complete, you'd have to store
> the file's owner and/or group, too.
That could be added via svn:owner, svn:group. In my case, I wouldn't
want that as the owner or group may change, but I want the
permissions to be the same.
> All of which leads towards storing and restoring ACLs.
Exactly. I believe that this can become a feature of the SCM rather
than something it ignores.
> So: +0 if you can come up with a generic way to describe a file's ACL,
> and use that, even if it's initially only used for Unix permission bits.
> If it can be used to version NT ACLs and various Unix ACL flavours, I'd
> be quite happy. (You do realize, of course, that if you go this way,
> then sooner or later ther'll have to be a generic ACL API in APR, too --
> but then, you're just the right person to design something like that. :-)
In the past, OtherBill has commented that the ACLs in NT are in no
way compatible with the ACLs in Unix. Now, I know nothing of how
Win32 stores permissions. If we can determine a common mapping
that works for both models, that would be great. Sooo, perhaps
we should bring this up on dev@apr and see if OtherBill bites?
> And: -0.5 if you just want to add another Unix-specific property that
> stores just basic Unix permission bits.
Well, if Win32 implemented apr_file_perms_set(), it'd work there
too. =) It just happens that apr_file_perms_set() mimics the
Unix permission bits (although in base 16 - don't ask). -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Aug 21 19:37:18 2002