Alvaro Lopez Ortega

« November 2009
Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30
Today

So, that looks like POSIX Draft ACLs (what UFS/tmpfs/...) support. What about ZFS/NFSv4 ACLs? Is Nautilus aware of which an object's filesystem supports and your screenshot was not of a ZFS/NFSv4 file? Or does Nautilus only support POSIX draft ACLs?

Posted by Nico on March 07, 2006 at 05:34 PM GMT+00:00 #

So, that looks like POSIX Draft ACLs (what UFS/tmpfs/...) support. What about ZFS/NFSv4 ACLs? Is Nautilus aware of which an object's filesystem supports and your screenshot was not of a ZFS/NFSv4 file? Or does Nautilus only support POSIX draft ACLs?

Posted by Nico on March 07, 2006 at 05:35 PM GMT+00:00 #

Nico, good point! I will implement the ZFS/NFS4 support as soon as I finish working in this first phase :-)

Posted by Alvaro Lopez Ortega on March 07, 2006 at 05:57 PM GMT+00:00 #

Shouldn't ACLs be on the same tab as permissions? I know gradma doesn't set file permissions very often but I think most office worker's would be very unsure of which to use.

Posted by Rob J. Caskey on March 07, 2006 at 07:06 PM GMT+00:00 #

Better yet, if a file has acls the normal permissions tab is pretty meaningless, if it has not, the ACL tab is. So you could merge them to an overall permissions tab intelligently shows the right settings... :-)

Posted by TRauMa on March 07, 2006 at 07:11 PM GMT+00:00 #

Thanks for working on this Alvaro!

Posted by Christian Neumair on March 07, 2006 at 08:10 PM GMT+00:00 #

This essentially duplicates the functionality of EICIEL http://rofi.pinchito.com/eiciel/

Posted by Andy Burns on March 07, 2006 at 08:48 PM GMT+00:00 #

Konqueror has had ACL support since the release of KDE 3.5:

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8335774339.html

http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6976

Posted by CS on March 07, 2006 at 09:51 PM GMT+00:00 #

Don't forget about other filesystem like afs :-)

Posted by torkel on March 08, 2006 at 03:29 PM GMT+00:00 #

"What about ZFS/NFSv4 ACLs?"

Note also that it's possible to handle a limited NFSv4 ACL's as if they were POSIX ACL's--NFSv4 ACL's are rich enough to contain ACL's with POSIX ACL semantics as a subset:

http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/nfsv4/rfc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-acl-mapping-03.txt

so it might be reasonable to present ACL's from that subset using just your current UI and then provide an "advanced" tab allowing full manipulation of the raw NFSv4 ACL. I dunno.

The one thing that might be nice to have even when dealing with that subset of NFSv4 ACL's would be the ability to handle the underlying NFSv4 names, which can be from foreign namespaces (they have the form user@domain).

Posted by bfields on March 08, 2006 at 11:09 PM GMT+00:00 #

ACL is a really poor choice of tab label, especially if you dont already know what ACL stands for (or in my case you thought it stood for something else like Microsoft Word spell checker Auto Correct Lists). The labelling could do with some tweaks to make the dialog a little more understandable or immediately to people who dont already know about ACLs or do not remember them quite as well as they should. A better label would be "Access" or something, avoid the acronyms. Of course if you can simply replace the Permissions tab with the ACL tab where available as suggested above that would be pretty good too. The R X and W labels in the column headings probably shouldn't be abbreviated either. If at all possible use the full words Read, Execute, and Write and leave the abbreviation to the toolkit (which should shorten them using ellipsis if necessary...) Looks great though, and it will be very useful to have this functionality

Posted by Alan on March 09, 2006 at 12:17 AM GMT+00:00 #