Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 61061 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2002 22:58:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 22:58:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 17500 invoked by uid 97); 25 Jan 2002 22:58:32 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 17347 invoked by uid 97); 25 Jan 2002 22:58:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 17335 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2002 22:58:30 -0000 Subject: RE: [SUBMIT] Attrib task (chmod for Windows) From: Jesse Stockall To: Ant Developers List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.1 Date: 25 Jan 2002 17:58:14 -0500 Message-Id: <1011999494.25737.40.camel@homer> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 17:07, Rob Oxspring wrote: > I agree - part of the problem is the semantics of the "perm" string this is > specific to each command and IMHO would be far clearer to read as separate > attributes readable, writable, executable in the case of chmod and > readonly,hidden,system,archive for attrib - thus there would be no confusion > of what the R means in each perm string. Agreed > > Determined to get some feedback (just tell me it sucks if you like) I'll > restate my proposed combined task: > > > ... > I would rather have something like: Which would do Windows: attrib +R +S Unix: chmod uo+r chmod uo-w > > The full list of commands should be attempted on every platform and warning > messages should be issued as commands fail (maybe calls to a given util > should not be attempted once they have failed once). I think the big > selling point of a combined task is that people using it to set the unix > permissions (for example) will be confronted by a bunch of ntfs permissions > in the manual which should trigger the build engineer to think about NT > permissions required and vice versa. Why would a Unix shop want to be "think" about NT permissions (or vise versa)? The task should be smart enough not to attempt to set executable on a Windows file. Unless -debug is enabled I don't want to see warnings about things I know already (no system flag on Unix) > > I think this approach would cover all bases, and gives the engineer enough > control to specify the order in which the attribute setting gets attempted > so that the desired affect is achieved. > > Rob IMO a permission task (attrib + chmod) should only support the level of functionality that can be assured across target platforms. This means that chown/chgrp on Unix, NTFS acl's, chmod on Windows (cygwin or path of NFS package) would be handled by other tasks, or by exec. Most of these operations are dependent on things that may or not be present (chmod.exe on Windows) or hard to verify (NTFS on Windows). -- Jesse Stockall | Tel: 1+ 613.599.2441 ext. 243 CRYPTOCard Corporation | Fax: 1+ 613.599.2442 Suite 304, 300 March Rd. | email: jesse@cryptocard.com Ottawa, ON, Canada K2K 2E2 | web: www.cryptocard.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: