[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug#472590: ls in Debian/Unstable
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: Bug#472590: ls in Debian/Unstable |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:43:42 +0200 |
Russell Coker <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
I do understand your sentiment.
If you raise the issue with the Austin Group, they'll at least
consider whether to adjust that part of the POSIX ls specification.
> That said, the above suggestion makes sense and would work reasonably well.