Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:37:36 -0400 From: Daniel Tso <dan@tsolab.org> To: "Ronald 'Ko' Klop" <ronald@node11a94.a2000.nl> Cc: Paul Horechuk <phorechuk@docucom.ca>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: X won't start Message-ID: <380339A0.93C4FE1D@tsolab.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910121452001.64453-100000@bak.evertsen.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Thanks for a couple of previous suggestions, but I still have the same > > problem. I checked the symbolic link for X and it appeared correct, except > > for the group access: > > > > lrwxrwxr-x 1 root 12000 24 May 28 20:58 /usr/X11R6/bin/X -> > > /usr/X11R6/bin/XF86_Mach64* > > > > A link doesn't have (used) permissions. You must look to the permissions > of the file where the link points to. > > Think about it. If the permissions of the link matter, everybody can make > a link to every program and give himself the permissions he/she likes. I've never understood this... why shouldn't a useful meaning be given to the permission modes of a symbolic link ? It could be treated like a directory -- indeed a symlink is kinda like a directory with only one entry: r could mean contents readable, w writable (alterable in situ, w permission in directory required for unlinking), and x for access (usable to dereference to target). Why shouldn't it be possible to prevent the public from using a symlink or seeing where it points to ? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?380339A0.93C4FE1D>