[#2139] Best way to install ri documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Folks:
69 messages
2004/01/04
[#2140] Re: Best way to install ri documentation
— Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
2004/01/04
On Monday, January 5, 2004, 2:29:57 AM, Dave wrote:
[#2141] Re: Best way to install ri documentation
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/01/04
Hi,
[#2145] Re: Best way to install ri documentation
— Richard Kilmer <rich@...>
2004/01/05
Perhaps make it available for mirrors and save ruby-lang's bandwidth?
[#2147] Re: Best way to install ri documentation
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/05
[#2254] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...>
2004/01/13
Hi,
[#2148] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/05
So, I'm thinking about doing the following? Is this OK with everyone?
[#2149] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— "J.Herre" <jlst@...>
2004/01/05
[#2152] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/05
[#2153] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— nobu.nokada@...
2004/01/05
Hi,
[#2154] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/05
[#2219] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— "James F. Hranicky" <jfh@...>
2004/01/12
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:47:41 +0900
[#2224] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/12
[#2228] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— "James F. Hranicky" <jfh@...>
2004/01/12
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:30:52 +0900
[#2230] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/12
[#2233] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— Eivind Eklund <eivind@...>
2004/01/12
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 12:01:38AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#2234] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/12
[#2166] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...>
2004/01/06
Hi, Dave,
[#2167] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/06
[#2161] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...>
2004/01/06
Hi,
[#2172] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...>
2004/01/06
Hi, daz,
[#2174] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this
— Jim Freeze <jim@...>
2004/01/06
On Tuesday, 6 January 2004 at 15:02:50 +0900, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
[#2163] Occasional --enable-pthread hangs... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
First of all, thanks so much to all those that have helped with
6 messages
2004/01/06
[#2235] Re: Occasional --enable-pthread hangs...
— Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
2004/01/12
On Jan 5, 2004, at 21:49, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
[#2186] Absolute paths in shebang lines? — "J.Herre" <jlst@...>
What would the reaction be to reconsidering the following proposal?
5 messages
2004/01/07
[#2194] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world? — Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
Hello,
27 messages
2004/01/09
[#2195] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— Eivind Eklund <eivind@...>
2004/01/09
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 06:02:07PM +0900, Ian Macdonald wrote:
[#2199] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
2004/01/09
On Fri 09 Jan 2004 at 23:10:02 +0900, Eivind Eklund wrote:
[#2200] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/01/10
Hi,
[#2203] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
2004/01/11
On Sun 11 Jan 2004 at 00:47:33 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2206] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/01/11
Hi,
[#2208] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
2004/01/11
On Sun 11 Jan 2004 at 21:40:22 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2209] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/01/12
Hi,
[#2214] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
2004/01/12
On Mon 12 Jan 2004 at 10:31:52 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2220] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/01/12
Hi,
[#2240] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
2004/01/12
On Mon 12 Jan 2004 at 22:36:16 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2256] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
2004/01/13
On Mon 12 Jan 2004 at 10:31:52 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2201] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
— Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
2004/01/11
On Sun 11 Jan 2004 at 00:47:33 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2211] xxx_init_copy — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I notivce that there're a bunch of new xxx_init_copy methods: RDoc is
17 messages
2004/01/12
[#2212] Re: xxx_init_copy
— nobu.nokada@...
2004/01/12
Hi,
[#2213] Re: xxx_init_copy
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/12
[#2312] Re: xxx_init_copy
— nobu.nokada@...
2004/01/29
Hi,
[#2313] Re: xxx_init_copy
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/29
[#2314] Re: xxx_init_copy
— nobu.nokada@...
2004/01/29
Hi,
[#2315] Re: xxx_init_copy
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/29
[#2325] Re: xxx_init_copy
— nobu.nokada@...
2004/02/02
Hi,
[#2326] Re: xxx_init_copy
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/02/02
[#2216] ruby aborts in data-handling applications — xsdg <xsdg@...>
I reported a similar bug about 2 or 3 months ago. The problem seemed to go
12 messages
2004/01/12
[#2217] Re: ruby aborts in data-handling applications
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/01/12
Hi,
[#2277] Re: ruby aborts in data-handling applications
— xsdg <xsdg@...>
2004/01/19
I've finally found a combination that will reliably segfault. Since my first post on this topic, I've switched the backend from BDB to GDBM.
[#2278] Re: ruby aborts in data-handling applications
— nobu.nokada@...
2004/01/19
Hi,
[#2279] Re: ruby aborts in data-handling applications
— xsdg <xsdg@...>
2004/01/19
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:32:59AM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
[#2225] Fwd: [ruby-cvs] ruby: * file.c (test_wr, test_ww): New functions implementing new — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
7 messages
2004/01/12
[#2244] Re: Fwd: [ruby-cvs] ruby: * file.c (test_wr, test_ww): New functions implementing new
— Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
2004/01/13
On Mon 12 Jan 2004 at 23:38:29 +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#2245] Re: [ruby-cvs] ruby: * file.c (test_wr, test_ww): New functions implementing new
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/01/13
[#2251] YAML_Unit_Tests failed — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...>
Hi,
5 messages
2004/01/13
[#2285] A suggestion for libraries such as base64.rb — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Some of the older libraries simply insert stuff into the top-level
5 messages
2004/01/20
[#2305] Time#usec round trip problem — Minero Aoki <aamine@...>
Hi,
4 messages
2004/01/26
[#2306] YAML.dump("a".."z") — Minero Aoki <aamine@...>
Hi,
4 messages
2004/01/26
Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world?
From:
Eivind Eklund <eivind@...>
Date:
2004-01-09 14:10:02 UTC
List:
ruby-core #2195
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 06:02:07PM +0900, Ian Macdonald wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As a system administrator, it's nice to be able to check for world
> readable and writable files without having to File.stat the file and
> check the mode for the relevant bits. Whilst that's easy enough to do,
> the resulting code is too ugly for an elegant language like Ruby, IMHO.
>
> The attached patch implements the File.readable_world? and
> File.writable_world? methods. Please consider its inclusion in Ruby. The
> diff is against the latest 1.8.1 snapshot.
I see two problems with this:
(1) There is no such thing as "readable world" in the permissions of
Unix; the closest I can think of is the combination of user, group
and other permissions. Note that these are grabbed in order;
the user that own it CAN NOT read a file with permissions -wxrwxrwx.
Using permissions rwx---rwx is a trick that sometimes is used to
make sure that a particular group cannot get at data.
This is resolvable by renaming to readable_other? (which is the
correct Unix terminology - see
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xbd/glossary.html#tag_004_000_107
for details). However, introduce another problem:
(2) If renamed to readable_other?, this is tied very closely to the
ancient Unix permissions systems. This isn't even correct for new
Unixes (ACLs are available), and definately not correct for Windows
et al.
Thinking a bit more about it while writing this, I wonder if the right
thing to do wouldn't be to extend the API with four calls instead of
two:
readable_world? - check for
(perm & (S_IRUSR|S_IRGRP|S_IROTH)) == (S_IRUSR|S_IRGRP|S_IROTH)
(that's the same as)
(perm & 0444) == 0444
readable_other? - check for
(perm & S_IROTH) == S_IROTH
(that's the same as)
(perm & 0004) == 0004
writable_world? and writeable_other? do the same for the write flags.
Introducing both of them has a couple of advantages:
- It make it obvious to people that there is a difference
- It provide at one call with semantics that can be used on
different permission systems
- It provide the functionality requested (which I agree would be
nice to have - I'd be annoyed if I discovered it was missing.)
Eivind.