This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?
- To: "cygwin-developers at sourceware dot cygnus dot com" <cygwin-developers at hotpop dot com>
- Subject: Re: call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?
- From: Chris Faylor <cgf at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 14:19:33 -0400
- References: <4.3.1.2.20000524132333.00e5d910@pop.ma.ultranet.com> <392C173E.704F5DCD@vinschen.de> <4.3.1.2.20000524140935.00e4e510@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:14:59PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>I'm left with the impression that the best option is to use the
>writable_directory() call when ntsec is not enabled and skip it when
>it is. Sounds to me like it wreaks havoc on proper ntsec function
>but gets as close to UNIX behavior as possible for nontsec. If this
>is indeed a valid synopsis of the pros/cons of this case, my high level
>view of this conditionalize the use of writable_directory. Did I miss
>some important point?
I think that I agree with Corinna. I've always had reservations about
this call, too. It's imposing UNIX permissions on NT and limiting
cygwin's ability to do things that a normal windows program can do.
I think that this is a gratuitous consistency and that it should be
eliminated. If people start noticing problems then we can always put
it back.
cgf