Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:46:24 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Edward_Tomasz_Napiera=B3a?= <trasz@FreeBSD.org> To: Harald Schmalzbauer <h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: setfacl man page states "d=delete_child" and "D=delete" Message-ID: <AAC2DE39-B682-4B25-99D1-40A866FFA4A6@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <511514F5.4010504@omnilan.de> References: <511514F5.4010504@omnilan.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wiadomo=B6=E6 napisana przez Harald Schmalzbauer w dniu 8 lut 2013, o = godz. 16:08: > Hello, >=20 > I think there's a confusion in the man page setfacl(1). >=20 > In my tests, "D" means "delete_child" and "d" "delete"; like it's true > for other NFSv4 implementations. But manpage tells the other way = around. Fixed the man page, thanks! [..] > P.S.: Btw., can anybody explain me why (at some time, someone decided > that) write permission to a directory does override file permissions > inside the directory? Not sure what you mean here. If you're asking why having write = permission to the directory gives the ability to remove files inside that = directory, despite not having write permission to the files themselves - well, = that's how it always worked. I guess the rationale is that when you remove a = file, you're modifying (writing) the directory, not the file contents. --=20 If you cut off my head, what would I say? Me and my head, or me and my = body?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AAC2DE39-B682-4B25-99D1-40A866FFA4A6>