On Oct 22 15:54, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 22 13:35, Habermann, Dave (DA) wrote:
> > 3) I also read "Cygwin implements the Solaris API to access Windows
> > ACLs in a Unixy way" (although your email says "Revamp Solaris ACL
> > implementation to more closely work like POSIX ACLs are supposed to
> > work").  So is it Solaris or is it POSIX, and if Solaris then I wonder
> > why since it seems that everywhere else you've tried to be as POSIX as
> > possible.
> 
> Solaris ACLs *are* POSIX ACLs :)
> 
> The difference is not how these ACLs look like, but only in the API
> used to access the ACLs.
> 
> The Solaris API was finished and working at the time I implemented this
> POSIX ACL support in Cygwin, while the POSIX draft 1003.1e was still in
> the works, and our role model Linux didn't even now how to spell ACL.
> These days, Linux implements the POSIX 1003.1e draft, (which, funny
> enough, has been withdrawn long ago), while Solaris and Cygwin provide
> the original Solaris API.

Btw., this probably goes without saying, but I would be really grateful
if somebody wants to take a stab at implementing the POSIX API, maybe
just on top of the underlying Solaris API, maybe as separate libacl.a
as on Linux.


One may dream...
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat