also sprach Kay Sievers [2004.12.17.1545 +0100]: > > > If yes, please point me to the chmod() of a symlink. I will > > > fix it. > > I was giving an example. > And where is the pointer to the code to proof your loud/proud > claim? Why do you need a pointer? Please consider standard usage scenarios instead! You are defending the integrity of your code when I try to tell you that it does not optimally service the user. Your code is fine, I am arguing that you should take a different perspective to permissions management: a perspective that is pragmatic, not theoretical and pedantic. > > If you ask me, permissions.d list should be extended by inner > > join with the symlinks list for each node. Then I would not have > > to touch symlinks and only the actual device pointed to gets > > changed. > > I don't ask you. Please try to convince somebody else. Oh bother, why is it that open source developers always assume that they are smarter than the rest of the world? > For my part, I've made my points clear: The addition of symlinks > should never affect the specified behavior of the device node. ... unless the administrator specifies permissions to be used for the device identified by the symlink. -- .''`. martin f. krafft : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!