Re: Bug#472590: ls in Debian/Unstable

[Jim Meyering]

Russell Coker <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Monday 31 March 2008 20:02, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I like Michael's suggestion.  Rephrasing it,
>>
>>     if (SELinux, with no other MAC or ACL)
>>       use '.'
>>     else if (any other combination of alternate access methods)
>>       use '+'
>>
>> If someone who already has a copyright assignment on file for coreutils
>> wants to write the patch (including doc update, tests, NEWS, ChangeLog,
>> etc.), please speak up ASAP.  Otherwise I'll do it.
>
> I still believe that as when running SE Linux all files will have contexts
> (the kernel code generates them if they are on a filesystem that doesn't
> support persistent storage of contexts or if they are unlabelled) then the SE
> Linux access controls should not be listed in "ls -l" output.

I do understand your sentiment.
If you raise the issue with the Austin Group, they'll at least
consider whether to adjust that part of the POSIX ls specification.

> That said, the above suggestion makes sense and would work reasonably well.