Re^2: Win file permissions: Win32::FileSecurity vs. Win32::OLE (fix it)

You are right, that's a possible solution and generally speaking I would agree with your answer. However, if I knew how to do that, then I wouldn't be posting the question here and I would be working on it already.

I'll keep looking for alternatives and post my findings, if any.

Comment on Re^2: Win file permissions: Win32::FileSecurity vs. Win32::OLE (fix it)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Win file permissions: Win32::FileSecurity vs. Win32::OLE (fix it) by syphilis (Archbishop) on Dec 08, 2006 at 10:47 UTC
However, if I knew how to do that, then I wouldn't be posting the question here and I would be working on it already At http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/ you'll see there's a libwin-32 mailing list. It's all but dead ... but there's possibly still a few people subscribed to that list (eg Jan Dubois) willing and able to help with the problem. Alternatively a simple bug report, without any proposed solution, to either rt.cpan.org (as tye suggested) or a Bugzilla report (see http://bugs.activestate.com/help.cgi) might prove fruitful. Jan Dubois is closely associated with fixing bugs in both ActiveState and the libwin package - but it's probably more appropriate to file your report with rt.cpan.org as it's really a libwin bug (rather than an ActiveState bug). Cheers, Rob	[reply]
Re^3: Win file permissions: Win32::FileSecurity vs. Win32::OLE (fix it) by tye (Sage) on Dec 08, 2006 at 19:55 UTC
You are capable of writing working code to do this using Win32::OLE. The complexity of fixing this module to add support for one more enum value is likely much less than that. Perhaps you should try rather than declaring defeat. - tye	[reply]


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks