From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-01 22:59:02
Tarjei Knapstad writes:
> On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 16:04, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> > Vladimir Prus writes:
> > > Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> > >
> > > >> The first two archives does not give write permissions to the user (for
> > > >> the unarchived files).
> > > >
> > > > That's intentional. After all, normally you shouldn't be modifying
> > > > anything in the distribution. Or should you?
> > >
> > > No unix source package I ever downloaded had read-only files.
> > Could our long-time unix users confirm/negate this experience?
> > > That gives no protection, really.
> > It prevents you from accidental editing/deletion.
> But that's putting the protection in at the wrong level in unix-land.
> For a system install, the files would be installed to a system wide
> location by the root user and thus only be writable by root. If I'd like
> to download boost and put it somewhere in my $HOME, I expect to be able
> to do whatever I like to the files. I.e. experiment with the code (this
> would not affect other users).
OK, got it.
> > > If I unintentionally remove some files, I can just reinstall.
> > I'd rather be saved from that.
> You are if you install boost as root (as you should if you're installing
> it system wide on any unix installation).
> Access control is more fine grained on unix - read only is only
> applicable as a "security measure" on windows IMHO.
Thanks for the explanation!
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk