This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Star (second try)


Am I missing something?  I see Corinna trying to relate this to cygwin
internals somehow, as would be appropriate for this mailing list.

However, I keep getting the feeling that you are asking for help porting
the star application.  That is an inappropriate topic here.

This is NOT a mailing list for speculating on what might or might not
be available in the cygwin DLL.  You should know that already.  Look
at the source.

If you don't have the source, then you should not be here.

Btw, we can't reuse code from Linux in Cygwin.  This was just discussed
recently in the cygwin-apps mailing list.  Red Hat needs to own the
code in cygwin, which we can't do with code from the linux kernel.

cgf

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 02:16:25PM +0200, schilling@fokus.gmd.de wrote:
>>From vinschen@redhat.com Wed Sep  5 13:22:51 2001
>
>>On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 12:50:43PM +0200, schilling@fokus.gmd.de wrote:
>>> OK, if NTFS ACLs are that different from POSIX ACLs then it probably
>>> won't make sense to use that to backup a FS. As star supports the
>>> RMT protocol nicely even on Cygwin backups using star may make sense.
>>> You could do a lot on Win9x if there was a function to get/set DOS file flags
>>> by using POSIX filenames. As I did not install cygwin sources for compilation,
>>> it would probably not make sense if I send a (untested) patch for that.
>
>>Just to be clear.  The Windows native implementation is very
>>different from the Solaris/POSIX implementations.  Cygwin uses
>>them when available (NTFS filesystem) and fakes them otherwise.
>>Let's talk about NTFS only.  Cygwin uses the underlying NTFS
>>implementation to implement POSIX like permissions (stat, chmod,
>>chown) and Solaris ACL calls (acl, facl, aclcheck, aclsort,
>>acltomode, ...).  Even the Solaris getfacl(1) and setfacl(1) tools
>>are available.  The reason for the Solaris implementation is
>>simple:  I didn't know of POSIX ACLs when I implemented that.
>
>OK, but now it should be easy to get access to the POSIX 1003.1e documents
>for ACLs. If I understand correctly, the main difference between 
>Solaris and POSIX is the name of the functions and the fact that
>Solaris includes the default ACL in the main ACL while POSIX
>handles them separately.
>
>>> I'll have a lookt at it. A Solaris ACL implementation for star will be
>>> available soon (when the Linux guys start to enhance star for Linux.
>
>>Why does that have to wait until the Linux guys are doing something?
>>The solaris ACL calls are already available for... Solaris (and
>>Cygwin).  So I would assume that implementing and testing star for
>>Solaris ACLs isn't dependent on Linux but on Solaris itself.
>
>Simple, I want other people give the chance to help me with the impelemation
>and I need to work on cdrecord again for some time ;-)
>
>>> Let's just wait for this and see what happend with the Linux code.
>>> The persons involved with ACLs on Linux like to make it POSIX compliant.
>>> Maybe some of the code can be reused.
>
>>You mean in star?  Or do you mean Linux code to be reused in Cygwin?
>>The first is very likely, the second is absolutely impossible.  Cygwin
>>relies on the Windows native API, naturally.
>
>We have to find a way to have an star archive format that fits for both.
>As the Linux code relies on low level syscall code that I assume is also
>present on Cygwin, it may be that the hig level code from Linux could
>be reused on Cygwin.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]