From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Oct 8 7:38:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9242737B66C for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 07:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from parish ([62.255.97.66]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with ESMTP id <20001008143830.GDSC13676.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@parish>; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:38:30 +0100 Received: (from mark@localhost) by parish (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e98EcNY02539; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:38:23 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:38:23 +0100 From: Mark Ovens To: Wilko Bulte Cc: Kent Stewart , Simon J Mudd , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make buildworld failing Message-ID: <20001008153823.F253@parish> References: <39E03D71.AC278983@urx.com> <20001008132312.A253@parish> <20001008154111.D96958@freebie.demon.nl> <20001008144909.D253@parish> <20001008160111.A97340@freebie.demon.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001008160111.A97340@freebie.demon.nl>; from wkb@freebie.demon.nl on Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:01:11PM +0200 Organization: Total lack of Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:01:11PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote: > On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 02:49:09PM +0100, Mark Ovens wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:41:11PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:23:12PM +0100, Mark Ovens wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 02:25:05AM -0700, Kent Stewart wrote: > > ... > > > > > should be quicker as chflags(1) won't have to test every file (99% of which > > > > won't have the schg flag set). > > > > > > To be honest I'm puzzled as to the usefulness of noschg in the first place. > > > People already having root privs are not stopped by it. > > > > Oh yes they are: > > I'm familiar with the behaviour below. But I classify it as annoying, > if root is too dim to be careful then... Ah right, I misunderstood you; I interpreted "People already having root privs are not stopped by it" as meaning the schg flag was ignored by rm(1) if you were root. > > Wilko > > > /tmp # touch foobar > > /tmp # chflags schg foobar > > /tmp # ls -lo foobar > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel schg 0 8 Oct 14:46 foobar > > /tmp # rm foobar > > override rw-r--r-- root/wheel schg for foobar? y > > rm: foobar: Operation not permitted > > /tmp # rm -f foobar > > rm: foobar: Operation not permitted > > /tmp # whoami > > root > > /tmp # > > -- > Wilko Bulte > wilko@freebsd.org Arnhem, the Netherlands > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message -- 4.4 - The number of the Beastie ________________________________________________________________ 51.44°N FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org 2.057°W My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark mailto:marko@freebsd.org http://www.radan.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message