call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?

Chris Faylor
Wed May 24 12:35:00 GMT 2000

On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 08:49:14PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>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