X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Andrew Schulman Subject: Re: Is there a fast way to get acl's for the whole filesystem (or chunk thereof) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:46:09 -0500 Lines: 8 Message-ID: References: <26222793 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <6fv6f5dgkrgi6baa9ghfjaqp7h9a3eq9pj AT 4ax DOT com> <4AF38812 DOT 4040309 AT gmail DOT com> <56i7f5lba7r55r24ug884qpehh66e2igpt AT 4ax DOT com> <20091106103419 DOT GZ26344 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <26230850 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <20091106193944 DOT GQ26344 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive: encrypt X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com > History. I knew the Solaris ACL API much earlier than I learned about > the POSIX ACL API, and the fact that POSIX 1003.1e was never really > finalized as a standard, but rather withdrawn while still being a draft > back in 1999 didn't give me any confidence that it's worth to implement. > Above all, the Solaris API is much simpler than the POSIX draft. Doesn't seem worth changing the API just to get a "free" getfacl -R. That should be straightforward to implement... for someone else :| -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple