Subject: Re: chflags wierdness
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Paul Boven <>
List: current-users
Date: 04/13/1997 20:43:40
Hi everyone,

> On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Paul Boven wrote:
>>So there are some documentation-issues, and the lack of, or confusing,
>>error- messages are part of the namei/lookup part of the kernel....
> You should certainly write a PR for the former. For the latter, seeing

Will do.
> > bash$ rm foo
> > override rw-r--r--  paul/1024 for foo? y
> > rm: foo: Operation not permitted
> is perfectly `reasonable' in the Unix sense of the term. :-) EPERM
> is the correct error for the system to return when you attempt to
> remove a file that's immutable. The two options to make this message
> `better' are to add a brand new error EPERMIMU `Attempt to remove
> an immutable file' (or some such), which is a bit silly, or to have
> rm check the flags on the file every time an EPERM is returned to
> see if the file is immutable and in a directory that the current
> user has wx access to, which also gets a bit silly.

But I find being asked permission to override something that is not
preventing the problem a bit silly myself. The EPERM I can live with,
but if the rw-bits are such that I should be able to delete a file, rm
should not ask me to "override" them as they are set 'correctly' 
already, and the overriding will not enable me to remove the file
So I'd suggest rm (would there be any other affected programs?)
would be enhanced in such a way that it does not ask about the
override when the rw-bits are not preventing the deletion, as the 
question is pointless anyway. It could either give the EPERM right
away, or add a somewhat more informative message.

Any comments?

Regards, Paul. 
Paul Boven, <>  PE1NUT  QRV 145.575 JO32KF
          Lynx users have a "Right to follow a link", too!