[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp
From: |
Larry Jones |
Subject: |
Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:50:29 -0500 (EST) |
Paul D. Smith writes:
>
> However, it seems like overkill to me. I wonder why you couldn't just
> use sticky bits on the repository directory? Then all files and
> subdirectories created in that hierarchy would automatically inherit the
> gid of its containing (sticky bit set) directory, accomplishing the same
> goal with much less work.
That is, in fact, what is generally suggested here.
-Larry Jones
Somebody's always running my life. I never get to do what I want to do.
-- Calvin
- sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Paul D. Smith, 2001/02/20
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp,
Larry Jones <=
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Richard Cobbe, 2001/02/20
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Larry Jones, 2001/02/21
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Laine Stump, 2001/02/22
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Larry Jones, 2001/02/22
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Laine Stump, 2001/02/22
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Derek R. Price, 2001/02/22
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Laine Stump, 2001/02/22