On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 12:17:52 +0200,
 e.p.boven@student.utwente.nl (Paul Boven) wrote:

> A ls -l does not show what is wrong with this, and the
> question/error-message is very misleading.

Considering the explanation for EPERM in errno(2) I think it
is fairly reasonable. Besides, if a user chooses to use extended
protection measures such as chflags(1), he _should_ know about
ls(1)'s "-o" option.  :-)


-klaus