Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:39:59 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: dynamo@ime.net, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Not sure if you got it... Message-ID: <199908300339.VAA00562@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:07:57 %2B1000." <199908300307.NAA06836@godzilla.zeta.org.au> References: <199908300307.NAA06836@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199908300307.NAA06836@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Bruce Evans writes: : >Is there a better way to turn off all the user flags then? : : Turning them all off works of course: : : chflags dump,noopaque,nouappnd,nochg,nouunlnk : : Is this better :-)? It's not future-proof. I'd prefer `chflags nouflags'. Any objections to chflags nouflags going into the tree, modulo problems with the actual code that does it? I'd also like to have a new flag to rm. -F. One -F will be chflags nouflags foo ; rm -f foo while two -F will be chflags 0 foo ; rm -f foo This is mostly for convenience, since otherwise I have to uglify the rc scripts with chflags. Comments on this idea as well? I've gotten antipathy in the past when I've asked. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908300339.VAA00562>