Subject: Re: Symlink ownership
To: None <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU, email@example.com>
From: Captech) <greywolf@tomcat.VAS.viewlogic.com (James Graham>
Date: 07/28/1995 10:36:16
#: From owner-current-users@NetBSD.ORG Thu Jul 27 23:55:22 1995
#: Posted-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:48:14 -0400
#: Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:48:14 -0400
#: From: Kenneth Stailey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
#: To: mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU
#: Cc: current-users@NetBSD.ORG
#: Subject: Re: Symlink ownership
#: Is there any reason that the special directory entry could not retain
#: the uid & gid for this special case of inode data?
Gid wouldn't be necessary; uid is necessary due to the constraints of
a sticky directory.
Personally, I still think that Yet Another Type of Directory Entry is
a worse abomination than Yet Another Type of File. POSIX blew it in
this respect: If you decide to change directory structure from what it
is currently, all you do is add overhead.