>> It just occurred to me, while reading a note about this, that it is
>> _not possible_ to make symlinks "unowned" and still preserve sticky
>> directory semantics
> What do you mean "_not possible_"?  This is software we're talking
> about, not physics.

I mean that sticky directory semantics depend on everything having an
owner (because the point of a sticky directory is that only a thing's
owner can remove that thing from the directory).  So they can't work
right with ownerless symlinks.

> IMHO sticky directories should retain the UID of the actual creator,
> not assume you can fudge one up from the file's inode.

Well, this would be a change from current sticky directory semantics,
because the current semantics are that a thing's owner is the person
who may remove it, regardless of the thing's creator.  (Which is the
root of the problem with hard links in a sticky directory.)  Quite
aside from that, it would be a fairly large filesystem change, because
it would mean changing all directories to record link creator
information (or else doing so only for sticky directories, and
forbidding setting the sticky bit on a non-empty directory).

					der Mouse

			    mouse@collatz.mcrcim.mcgill.edu