On Sun, 22.06.08 09:46, Andrea (mariofutire at googlemail.com) wrote: > > 2 is an indication that ACLs are set on those device files, as > > controlled via setfacl(1) or getfacl(1). > > I had not enabled ACLs on ext2/3. Now it seems it works. > Do you think it is worth mentioning it in some documentation? > Or is it implementation specific and does not apply everywhere? Distributors know that. Or let me put it this way: why would anyone want to disable ACLs? ACLs are an integral part of modern Linux systems. Software can nowadays rely on that they exist. Hence they use them. And I am also pretty sure that the HAL docs mention this fact somewhere. > > On modern Linux systems a software called ConsoleKit tracks which > > It's getting harder and harder to keep track of the new stuff of modern systems. Sure, that's why there are those things called "distributions" which do the work for you. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
