Relative vs. absolute ACLs, and necessity for '-' when printing

[Casey Schaufler]

Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Casey Schaufler wrote: ...
> With `-' meaning `remove the following permission(s)', how is setfacl
> supposed to interpret the output of getfacl?

This is one of the reasons we didn't implement the ACL editing
library in Irix.
> 
> > > 2) The .2c getfacl specification states that a given right letter ("w",
> > > for example) "may" be replaced by a "-" if the right is not present.
> >
> > Thus, o::x, o::-x, o::--x ougth to be eqivalent. In Irix we let you
> > toss a '-' in anywhere you want, and don't require the access mode
> > specifications to be in any particular order. Thus, o::rw, o::r-w,
> > o::rw-, o::---------w--------r---------- are all legal, and
> > equivalent.
> 
> This seems to contradict your response to question one.

Well, it does indicate that we don't conform to the Draft.

-- 

Casey Schaufler				Manager, Trust Technology, SGI
casey at sgi.com				voice: 650.933.1634
casey_p at pager.sgi.com			Pager: 888.220.0607
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at cyrus.watson.org
with "unsubscribe posix1e" in the body of the message