On Saturday 09 October 2004 15:15, Spider wrote:
> Okay, I'm short of temper today, so I'll try to not come across as
> wanting to tear you apart.   *grins*

Ok, I'll not react to flames (much).
>
> Have I ever even refuted ACL's?   I didn't bring them up since they
> aren't documented as a possibility. Neither are group rights,  Merlin,
> or any of the other rights based permission-sets avaiable for unix.  I
> didn't bring up clustered stores either,  even if those can,
> technically, be used.

No you didn't. Actually ACL's are quite new and indeed very poorly documented. 
They are however a good, clean solution to these issues and I suggest that we 
consider them as a solution for this (with documentation). ACL's are 
basically available for allmost all users as the latest 2.4 series also 
support them on at least ext{2,3}fs, reiserfs and xfs.

>
> Neither did I bring up things like R/W VFAT mounts, which would -also-
> solve the problem of having a shared space for files...   Simply by not
> having rights management :-)

R/W vfat mounts have serious disadvantages and are a crude tool.

> The question I posed, along with a somewhat make-shift solution, was
> that we ought to have such a thing documented as avaiable.   (yes, that
> means supported ;)

I agree.

> I've seen solutions based on WebDAV + mdns to discover it, by indexing
> the local Music dir in users homedirs shared with apache to the other
> users (rendezvous / zeroconf  style)  But, this again, isn't something
> we support, nor would I really advocate it, as it isn't optimal in any
> sense.

Acl support is bugfree, supported by modern kernels and most relevant 
filesystems and comes at very little cost (mostly diskspace). It offers a 
great flexibility over the standard posix rights and can be made to work on 
solving these issues.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@g.o
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net