Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
lkcl at switchboard.net
Tue Jul 20 23:32:58 GMT 1999
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > > > The latter, however, is probably a good idea. Note that, as there is no
> > > > apparent standard for ACL implementations under Unix, a separate
> > > > implementation is needed for each OS. I've been playing with some ideas for
> > > > an HP-UX implementation, myself. Probably what's needed first is a set of
> > > > generic utility functions to get/set NT ACLs on Unix files, with the actual
> > > > implementation varying depending on the host OS.
> > >
> > > Yep, that's exactly what I'm planning for a future release.
> > >
> > > I intend to abstract the ACL interfaces (which are different
> > > on almost *every* UNIX, as the POSIX committee failed to
> > > agree - arghhhhh !) in the same way as the lib/system.c
> > > calls.
> > i would recommend that the API have exactly the same arguments as the
> > Windows NT MSDN API, and be redirected / mapped from there to the various
> > UNIX ACL APIs.
> Why do you keep wanting to re-create Win32 on
> UNIX (isn't that what Wine is doing :-) :-) ? It isn't
> even a *stable* API (the security api calls change every
> WinNT release as they're *still* too complicated for any
> application to actually use), let alone a good one :-).
one of the reasons to convert at the last minute is to add linux ntfs
More information about the samba-technical