[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions
From: |
Zenaan Harkness |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:00:09 +1000 |
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 01:06, Robin Farine wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 September 2004 09.29, address@hidden wrote:
> What I am trying to say since the beginning of this discussion is
> that versioning access rights need not to be handled by Arch as
> something different from any other text file. Access rights
> associated with _deployed_ files are not necessarily the same as
> the access rights associated with files in a project tree or in a
> revision library. The only thing Arch needs to provide is a hook
> triggered by commands that alter a project tree, e.g. get, replay,
> update,.
>
> > Of course, for some attributes on some target systems you have
> > to perform an actual mapping [on unix: owner <--> chown()
> > perms <--> chmod() and so on, as far as your capabilities
> > allow it. What to do when not? What to do with `other'
> > metadata: e.g. WinNT ACLs on unix?]
>
> It depends on the project. In a lot of projects, we just do not
> care about the access rights. For projects where they are
> important, nothing prevents us from having more than one access
> right description file, each using a syntax adapted to the targeted
> scheme.
>
> Again, the tool that manages access rights does not have to be
> tightly integrated with Arch, it just depends on the output of
> 'inventory'. So support for a new scheme of access rights can be
> added later without incidence on Arch code or archives or project
> trees or revision libraries.
>
> Now, even if people think the current mechanism is what they need
> and that I am just hand waving, fine, then being able to completely
> disable the current mechanism (.arch-params option ?) would be
> perfect so that we can have readonly files in revision libraries
> and get rid of the annoying changes in permissions caused by
> Windows/samba.
I very much agree with your assessment.
Thanks
Zenaan
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, (continued)
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Miles Bader, 2004/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, John Meinel, 2004/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Miles Bader, 2004/09/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Miles Bader, 2004/09/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, tomas, 2004/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions,
Zenaan Harkness <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, tomas, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, tomas, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Aaron Bentley, 2004/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Miles Bader, 2004/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Stefan Monnier, 2004/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Milan Cvetkovic, 2004/09/24