Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 01:26:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: "M.R.Murphy" <mrm@Mole.ORG> Cc: beattie@stt3.com, julian@whistle.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@FreeBSD.ORG, mckusick@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: NEW FEATURE. BSD file NOUNLINK flag. RFC.. will commit unless.... Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970528012314.7103A-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> In-Reply-To: <199705280348.UAA03107@meerkat.mole.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 27 May 1997, M.R.Murphy wrote: [NOUNLINK] > > To your comment.. This is no more 'annoying' than the 'IMMUTIBLE' flag > > that presently does even more.. > > > > personally I think it complements the other flags quite well. > > > > comments? > > > [snip] > I would say, though, that if you want special tools for a special > appliance, then build the special tools, and restrict the general > tools. It's an application policy problem, not a system problem. > > Hrrrumph. Feeping creaturism. Hmm... What if they were considered `levels' of IMMUTIBLE. ie. IMMUTIBLE_1, IMMUTIBLE_2, etc. :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.970528012314.7103A-100000>