call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?

Corinna Vinschen
Wed May 24 11:50:00 GMT 2000

Chris Faylor wrote:
> 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.

I want to suggest that I change the function to return always `TRUE'.
The actual code can be preserved by a `#if 0' directive for a
later (ab)use or until we decide to remove it completely.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list