Re: [9fans] permission bit of /mail/box

[okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp]

> It is not at clear to me that an "no archive" bit is such
> a good idea.  My main objection is that it is implicit -- if
> I set the bit for /usr/rsc, it's hard to see quickly that
> /usr/rsc/lib/profile is not archived.

Really?
I thought it must be done easily.  Of course, I have no good
knowledge of it.  Is it really difficult?   All the default setting
is going to archive, and only some directories, (or it should be
confined to files only, I'm not sure yet), will be set by the user
to no archive.   Of if a directory is set so, underlying directories
must be so.   If it's not easy to many user, s/he will not use it.
It's not important.   The point is there is such an oppotunity
to trained user.  It's freedom to use that operating system related,
I believe.

> Then again, we already
> have this property with walk -- if I chmod 700 /usr/rsc then
> even if /usr/rsc/lib/profile is mode 666, no one else can edit it.
> Further, if you wondered why "cat `{yesterday lib/profile}" wasn't
> working, it would tell you:
>
> 	glenda% cat `{yesterday /usr/r/lib/profile}
> 	cat: can't open /n/dump/2003/0921/usr/r/lib/profile:
> 		'/n/dump/2003/0921/usr/r' does not exist
> 	glenda%
>
> or at least it should -- the error-generating code appears
> not to be working properly.  It actually says:
>
> 	glenda% cat `{yesterday /usr/r/lib/profile}
> 	cat: can't open /n/dump/2003/0921/usr/r/lib/profile:
> 		'/n/dump/2003/0921/usr/r/lib/profile' does not exist
> 	glenda%
>
> which is wrong.

Both are not wrong.
User must know what s/he did on his/her home directory.

Is it really difficult, once again?

Kenji