[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug#472590: ls in Debian/Unstable
From: |
Russell Coker |
Subject: |
Re: Bug#472590: ls in Debian/Unstable |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:23:59 +1100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.5 |
On Monday 31 March 2008 20:02, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> I like Michael's suggestion. Rephrasing it,
>
> if (SELinux, with no other MAC or ACL)
> use '.'
> else if (any other combination of alternate access methods)
> use '+'
>
> If someone who already has a copyright assignment on file for coreutils
> wants to write the patch (including doc update, tests, NEWS, ChangeLog,
> etc.), please speak up ASAP. Otherwise I'll do it.
I still believe that as when running SE Linux all files will have contexts
(the kernel code generates them if they are on a filesystem that doesn't
support persistent storage of contexts or if they are unlabelled) then the SE
Linux access controls should not be listed in "ls -l" output.
That said, the above suggestion makes sense and would work reasonably well.