Subject: Re: lchflags(2)?
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/20/2000 10:50:30
Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000, matthew green wrote:
> > i've implemented an lchflags(2) (that does not follow symlinks, and
> > can thus operate on symlinks). it appears to work just fine. however
> > the chflags(1) man page claims that symlinks don't have flags?
> > chflags(1) itself will need some updating, but does anyone object to
> > this new system call?
> Why do we want it?
Does an immutable symlink make sense?