call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?

Chris Faylor
Wed May 24 11:20:00 GMT 2000

On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:14:59PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>I'm left with the impression that the best option is to use the 
>writable_directory() call when ntsec is not enabled and skip it when
>it is.  Sounds to me like it wreaks havoc on proper ntsec function
>but gets as close to UNIX behavior as possible for nontsec.  If this
>is indeed a valid synopsis of the pros/cons of this case, my high level
>view of this conditionalize the use of writable_directory.  Did I miss
>some important point?

I think that I agree with Corinna.  I've always had reservations about
this call, too.  It's imposing UNIX permissions on NT and limiting
cygwin's ability to do things that a normal windows program can do.

I think that this is a gratuitous consistency and that it should be
eliminated.  If people start noticing problems then we can always put
it back.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list