call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?
Chris Faylor
cgf@cygnus.com
Wed May 24 11:20:00 GMT 2000
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:14:59PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>I'm left with the impression that the best option is to use the
>writable_directory() call when ntsec is not enabled and skip it when
>it is. Sounds to me like it wreaks havoc on proper ntsec function
>but gets as close to UNIX behavior as possible for nontsec. If this
>is indeed a valid synopsis of the pros/cons of this case, my high level
>view of this conditionalize the use of writable_directory. Did I miss
>some important point?
I think that I agree with Corinna. I've always had reservations about
this call, too. It's imposing UNIX permissions on NT and limiting
cygwin's ability to do things that a normal windows program can do.
I think that this is a gratuitous consistency and that it should be
eliminated. If people start noticing problems then we can always put
it back.
cgf
More information about the Cygwin-developers
mailing list