Re: Should I be concerned about the XATTR_SHOWCOMPRESSION option?
Re: Should I be concerned about the XATTR_SHOWCOMPRESSION option?
- Subject: Re: Should I be concerned about the XATTR_SHOWCOMPRESSION option?
- From: James Bucanek <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:41:45 -0700
Jim Luther <mailto:email@hidden> wrote (Friday, February
24, 2012 11:25 AM -0800):
On Feb 23, 2012, at 6:14 PM, James Bucanek <email@hidden> wrote:
Which brings up a question that I've never gotten answered: Are the POSIX
chflags reflected and set as part of the FSPermissionInfo
structure inside FSCatalogInfo, or must I set these separately
with chflags(2)
after the file is restored? (Right now I write the file forks, restore
extended attributes and ACLs, and then set all FSCatalogInfo as the final
step.)
No, they are not. The only file flag the Carbon File Manager modifies is
UF_IMMUTABLE (if you are locking or unlocking a file). If either UF_IMMUTABLE
or SF_IMMUTABLE is set, the file is considered locked. Other file flags are
preserved when UF_IMMUTABLE is set or cleared.
Good to know. It looks like I'll record and restore the chflags
separately from the FSCatalogInfo stuff.
And by the way, if you are seeded with Mountain Lion, take a look at at the
CarbonCore header comments (the block comments at the top of each file).
That'll give you an idea of the future.
I haven't looked at Mountain Lion yet, but I can guess what the
writing on the wall says.
It's just a tad frustrating because I talked to a couple of
filesystem engineers at the 2008 WWDC and asked them point blank
if I should be converting all of my Carbon APIs to BSD, and they
all say "no, no, no, Carbon is fully supported, just as fast,"
and so on.
I guess nothing lasts forever. :)
Have a great weekend,
James
--
James Bucanek
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Filesystem-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden