Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:42:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@watson.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/ufs/ufs ufs_acl.c Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011027134055.11981A-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200110270539.f9R5dHY50655@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Robert Watson wrote: :rwatson 2001/10/26 22:39:17 PDT : : Log: : o Althought this is not specified in POSIX.1e, the UFS ACL implementation : coerces the deletion of a default ACL on a directory when no default Is there something that we can say to describe our compatibility with standards (POSIX.1e, other gov standards)? I realize that we'd enjoy to adhere to POSIX.1e, but it isn't a requirement that we do so... So do we just say "We're POSIX.1e compliant... sorta kinda maybe" ? Andrew *-------------................................................. | Andrew R. Reiter | arr@fledge.watson.org | "It requires a very unusual mind | to undertake the analysis of the obvious" -- A.N. Whitehead To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011027134055.11981A-100000>