[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp
From: |
Paul D. Smith |
Subject: |
Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:14:45 -0500 |
%% address@hidden (Larry Jones) writes:
lj> 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.
lj> That is, in fact, what is generally suggested here.
Cool; I'll change it then.
Thanks for double-checking my assumptions.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <address@hidden> HASMAT--HA Software Methods & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
- sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Paul D. Smith, 2001/02/20
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Larry Jones, 2001/02/20
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp,
Paul D. Smith <=
- 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