Pasky wrote:
> It has some room for more
> crystal-clearness, though. ;-)
True indeed ;).
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.650.933.1373,
1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe f
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 03:35:08AM CEST, I got a letter
where Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> Petr wrote:
> > The documentation I've got says:
> >
> > "R_OK, W_OK and X_OK request checking whether the file exists and has
> > read, write and execute permissions, r
Petr wrote:
> The documentation I've got says:
>
> "R_OK, W_OK and X_OK request checking whether the file exists and has
> read, write and execute permissions, respectively. F_OK just requests
> checking for the existence of the file."
You don't exactly say it, but I'm guessing that you thi
> So it shouldn't complain about a filename which you're allowed to try to
> stat, even if there's nothing there.
I'm not sure what 'nothing there' means to you.
To me, it means 'no file there', so no you would not be allowed
to stat it - and should fail ENOENT.
> And it would depend on the priv
Petr wrote:
> Does this distinction have any effect when doing F_OK?
Well, yeah. If only one of real or effective id's could traverse the
path (execute perm on directories), then you'd get the wrong answer.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, L
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 04:03:46PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> Actually, the documentation I've got says:
>
> "F_OK requests checking whether merely testing for the existence of the
> file would be allowed (this depends on the permissions of the directories
> in the path to the file, as give
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 09:25:17PM CEST, I got a letter
where Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> Petr wrote:
> > BTW, I'd just use access(F_OK) instead of stat() it I don't care about
>
> I recommend _only_ using it when you require exactly the above real vs.
> effectiv
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 09:25:17PM CEST, I got a letter
> where Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> > Petr wrote:
> > > BTW, I'd just use access(F_OK) instead of stat() it I don't care about
> >
> > I recommend _only_ using it w
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 10:03:46PM CEST, I got a letter
where Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
> > Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 09:25:17PM CEST, I got a letter
> > where Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that.
Petr wrote:
> BTW, I'd just use access(F_OK) instead of stat() it I don't care about
That's a bad habit to get into.
access(2) checks with the process's real uid and gid, rather than with
the effective ids as is done when actually attempting an operation.
This is to allow set-UID programs to eas
Drop this one for now; I'll revisit it once more important stuff is
settled down.
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majo
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 05:35:19PM CEST, I got a letter
where Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> Index: checkout-cache.c
> ===
> --- 157b46ce1d82b3579e2e1258927b0d9bdbc033ab/checkout-cache.c (mode:100644
This adds an option (compile time, defined in the Makefile) to have a
cache of extracted blobs so that different working directories can
hardlink against them instead of creating new files for every
checkout. You should only use this if you're sure the programs you use
break links on modification a
13 matches
Mail list logo
