Luke Mewburn said:

>As discussed last time ACLs came up, just because *you* don't have a
>use for ACLs does not mean that ACLs are useless for other NetBSD
>users.

>If a suitable ACL implementation was made available for NetBSD (e.g,
>what's in TrustedBSD), I see no problem with it being added as an
>option to the system, just like quotas, endian-independent ffs file
>systems, and other such optional features.

As long as it is truly optional. It's useful if needed, but otherwise
adds uneeded overhead to the file system. 

-- 
Rick Kelly  rmk@rmkhome.com  www.rmkhome.com