On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:30:35PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > In any case, seeing the behaviour of the exec-permission bits, I have a
> > "wouldn't it be nice if...": wouldn't it be nice if the executable
> > permission bits would act
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:30:35PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> In any case, seeing the behaviour of the exec-permission bits, I have a
> "wouldn't it be nice if...": wouldn't it be nice if the executable
> permission bits would actually correspond to the executability
> of a file? I
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:30:35PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>> In any case, seeing the behaviour of the exec-permission bits, I have a
>> "wouldn't it be nice if...": wouldn't it be nice if the executable
>> permission bits would actuall
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:30:35PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> In any case, seeing the behaviour of the exec-permission bits, I have a
> "wouldn't it be nice if...": wouldn't it be nice if the executable
> permission bits would actually correspond to the executability
> of a file? I m
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 05:19:47PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > > This has nothing to do with each other. The mount -E flag doesn't
> > > influence the permission bits.
> > Then what is it supposed to do? I mean, if the man page says it m
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 05:19:47PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > This has nothing to do with each other. The mount -E flag doesn't
> > influence the permission bits.
> Then what is it supposed to do? I mean, if the man page says it makes
It handles the way executables are recognized.
Corinna,
I'll have to go home (the working day here has ended) but if you want, I
do have an XP box at home with Cygwin on it, so I could do some more tests
there if it is of any use to you. (If not, I'll just enjoy the week-end).
Otherwise, I'll be happy to continue any testing of any Cygwin fe
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:51:31PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > However, shouldn't the -E option have changed the mode of the "world"
> > file? My mount table shows "noexec" for /home and "world" is still
> > executable - as is the "doe
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:51:31PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> However, shouldn't the -E option have changed the mode of the "world"
> file? My mount table shows "noexec" for /home and "world" is still
> executable - as is the "doe" file I just created with Explorer, but not
> the "j
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:28:08PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > Yes, I am a member of the administrators group.
> > No, the administrators group is not mentioned in /etc/passwd (but it is in
> > /etc/group)
> Add it using mkpasswd -l and
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:28:08PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> Yes, I am a member of the administrators group.
> No, the administrators group is not mentioned in /etc/passwd (but it is in
> /etc/group)
Add it using mkpasswd -l and everything's fine. It's added automatically
when runn
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 03:53:28PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > The "hello" is created with `touch hello`; the `world` with explorer.
>
> Content-Description: output of ls
> > total 46
> > -rw-rw-rw-1 RLandhee Aucun 0 Jan 2
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 03:53:28PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> The "hello" is created with `touch hello`; the `world` with explorer.
Content-Description: output of ls
> total 46
> -rw-rw-rw-1 RLandhee Aucun 0 Jan 24 14:51 hello
> -rwxrwxrwx1 65535Aucun 0
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 06:58:38PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:23:28PM +0100, Christian Mueller wrote:
> > >>I don't want to use ntsec because I use my Cygwin
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 06:58:38PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:23:28PM +0100, Christian Mueller wrote:
> >>I don't want to use ntsec because I use my Cygwin home directory for
> >>Cygwin *and* Windows programs and nt
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 06:58:38PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:23:28PM +0100, Christian Mueller wrote:
>>I don't want to use ntsec because I use my Cygwin home directory for
>>Cygwin *and* Windows programs and ntsec displays screwed-up file
>>permissions for files cr
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:23:28PM +0100, Christian Mueller wrote:
> I don't want to use ntsec because I use my Cygwin
> home directory for Cygwin *and* Windows programs and ntsec displays
> screwed-up file permissions for files created by Windows programs.
The next version of Cygwin changes the
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:23:28PM +0100, Christian Mueller wrote:
> Thus, I went ahead and modified ntea.cc and security.cc to support
> uid/gid in addition to the file mode. The modified version now uses
> three extended attributes:
>
>.UNIXATTR - file mode (same as in current versions)
>
Hi all,
after ntsec became the default for cygwin (and some further changes to
ruserok()), I ran into problems running servers such as rshd depending
on .rhosts and ruserok() because I don't use ntsec and ntea doesn't
store the file's uid/gid. As a result, I can't use rshd anymore
because it compl
19 matches
Mail list logo
