[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Fine-grained permissions on checked out files?

From: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz_at_apache.org>
Date: 2002-08-21 21:57:22 CEST

On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:16:36PM +0200, Branko ??ibej wrote:
> >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.
> Urgh, yuck. Let's not go that way.

Why not?

> >In the past, OtherBill has commented that the ACLs in NT are in no
> >way compatible with the ACLs in Unix.
> >
> Nonsense. First of all, each Unix flavour I've seen has slightly
> different ACL semantics, and they're just about as compatible with each
> other as NT ACLs are with any Unix flavour. The right direction would
> probably be to find a manageable superset of ACL semantics, and map that
> to what's available in the OS. But any "complete" model is hugely
> complicated because you have to somehow map principal names, too, not
> just ACL semantics.

I know Solaris has true ACLs (getfacl/setfacl), but I think the
*BSD's don't have it. The lowest common denominator in Unix is
u-g-o permission bits. So, when we talk about Unix ACLs, I think we
pretty much restrict ourselves to permissions on the file. Nothing
else is going to work on Unix-based platforms.

For what I need, the concept *must* be mappable to the u-g-o
permissions as certain files (say my SSH private key) must have the
right permissions or other tools (ssh) will abort. -- 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 21:57:58 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.