Subject: Re: Support for ACLs
To: David Brownlee <>
From: Greywolf <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 03/08/2001 11:02:45
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, David Brownlee wrote:

# On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Lord Isildur wrote:
# > this is because you dont need to go mucking around with the filesystem to
# > achieve this. the 'non supportive' people were right.
# > besides, this sort of thing has no place in the generic filesystem code,
# > nor in the FFS. Certain filesystems support acls, for example AFS, and
# > those can coexist just fine with NetBSD. Leave such specificity in a
# > special filesystem implementation like AFS support, not in the generic fs
# > code or in the FFS.
# > This sort of thing is what groups were invented for close to 30 years
# > ago.
# 	So how does a large site setup a group of NetBSD and Windows
# 	systems to have the same set of users and file access
# 	rights? Put all the filesystems on Windows boxes and share
# 	to NetBSD? ACLs provide a set of functionality that is very
# 	useful for some people.
# 	If you do not think putting support in the UFS layer is
# 	the right solution, suggest a better one, or step up and
# 	say you do not think his problem should be solved by NetBSD.
# 	Don't just say "that is not the way to do it".

I think there's two issues being brought up, here, one of them being
file typing attributes (a la Microshaft and their godawful registry thing),
and the other being ACLs.

ACLs make a modicum of sense, at least, and though I'm not savvy as to
the best way to implement them, I wouldn't mind seeing them appear.

On the other hand, the file-typing garbage, if it MUST be handled, can
be handled in userland, on a per-user-preferential thing (stuff it into
a shell as an optional feature, or use gmc, or whatever).  I could do
without it, myself.

# 		David/absolute		-- No hype required --

*BSD: your basement or mine?