From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andrey mirtchovski To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] execute bits In-Reply-To: <20030623221808.28717.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:22:53 -0600 Topicbox-Message-UUID: d8708ab2-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 i've solved this by adding the user that does updates (i.e. me) to a special group of users which have write permission over /src and /386... it's a bit more complicated than that and is definitely not easier than doing a disk/kfscmd allow, but ti avoids having the system in an unprotected state. the idea i got from /adm/users on sources.cs.bell-labs... andrey On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Scott Schwartz wrote: > | one should avoid having the system in an 'allowed' state as much as > | possible. > > Yes, but when a really big update is being pull-ed, it might > be in that state for a while. >