Subject: Re: chflags wierdness
To: Klaus Klein <email@example.com>
From: Ted Lemon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/13/1997 11:35:41
> Besides, if a user chooses to use extended protection measures such
> as chflags(1), he _should_ know about ls(1)'s "-o" option. :-)
What if the user didn't set the flag? The first time I got an EPERM
trying to modify a chflagged file, it took be a while to figure out
what was going on, and I already *knew* about flags. A random user
isn't going to know. I'm not sure how to solve this problem - rm
isn't the only program that could trip over this - but it definitely
is a problem, and blaming the user isn't going to solve it.
I'm not sure it can be solved without breaking POSIX compatibility -
can ls be modified to print flags that could cause an EPERM if they
are nonzero and the -l flag is given?