On 11 March 2010 00:18, Vincent Ladeuil <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Another option would be to say we always attempt to chown the .bazaar (and .bzr.log) to be the same
>> as the containing directory.
>
> Until parthm nudged me enough to reveal that chown isn't working for the average user, I had always thought
> *any* user can freely use chown as long as he had write access to the containing directory.
Sure, I meant to say "always try to", but we must not be surprised if
we get EPERM.
>
> I was wrong.
>
> chown(2) unambiguously says:
>
> Only a privileged process (Linux: one with the CAP_CHOWN capability)
> may change the owner of a file. The owner of a file may change the
> group of the file to any group of which that owner is a member. A
> privileged process (Linux: with CAP_CHOWN) may change the group arbi‐
> trarily.
On 11 March 2010 00:18, Vincent Ladeuil <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Another option would be to say we always attempt to chown the .bazaar (and .bzr.log) to be the same
>> as the containing directory.
>
> Until parthm nudged me enough to reveal that chown isn't working for the average user, I had always thought
> *any* user can freely use chown as long as he had write access to the containing directory.
Sure, I meant to say "always try to", but we must not be surprised if
we get EPERM.
>
> I was wrong.
>
> chown(2) unambiguously says:
>
> Only a privileged process (Linux: one with the CAP_CHOWN capability)
> may change the owner of a file. The owner of a file may change the
> group of the file to any group of which that owner is a member. A
> privileged process (Linux: with CAP_CHOWN) may change the group arbi‐
> trarily.
btw I think this may vary between unixes.
-- launchpad. net/~mbp/>
Martin <http://