Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
dev-libs/gmime-2.2.23 (/usr/lib64/libgmime-2.0.so.2 -> ...)
I'm guessing that's what's responsible, as a library, but as I said,
there's no pan code dealing with permissions -- it's all the library.
Not necessarily, but it has nothing to do with d/l perms:
/usr/l
Duncan wrote:
> equery b libgmime-2.0.so.2
> [ Searching for file(s) libgmime-2.0.so.2 in *... ]
> dev-libs/gmime-2.2.23 (/usr/lib64/libgmime-2.0.so.2 -> ...)
>
> I'm guessing that's what's responsible, as a library, but as I said,
> there's no pan code dealing with permissions -- it's all the li
Dear Duncan,
But where is your umask set, and would however you invoke pan get that
same umask or not? IOW, presumably you start pan from a desktop menu
I did not check that, but given that 'touch' from terminal, Opera and
Thunderbird all do the same, I guess it is 022 for all (not sure if I
"Paul Crawford (at UoD)"
posted 499adf74.2070...@sat.dundee.ac.uk, excerpted below, on Tue, 17 Feb
2009 16:01:56 +:
>>
>> Resulting permissions on the executable:
>>
>> 0750 -rwxr-x---
>>
>> OK, the permissions honor umask (0027), but the executable bit is set
>> if allowed. Hmm...
>
>
Steven D'Aprano posted
499aba3d.8040...@pearwood.info, excerpted below, on Wed, 18 Feb 2009
00:23:09 +1100:
> Overheard in the boardroom of Ford Motor Company:
>
> "Oh no, you can't blame our SUVs for their poor fuel economy or for
> producing vast amounts of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, ni
David Shochat
posted 9b8d5d890902170312p771775f1jf7c00686436f0...@mail.gmail.com,
excerpted below, on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:12:02 -0500:
>> As I said, the folks reporting [the threading stall]
>> were all on Ubuntu, at the time 8.04
>> but I have no idea whether it was fixed for 8.10 or not, and s
Dear Duncan,
After finding the group and then the thread, then confirming the right
post, I downloaded (to cache, my default download action) it, then when
it was all in cache, hit save, and selected save both text and
attachments, since I wanted to investigate what on the raw message
contains
Duncan wrote:
So it doesn't look like I'm going to be made to eat some of those 250
lines now after all, tho only by virtue of the fact that it's not the pan
code that's doing it but the library. =:^)
Overheard in the boardroom of Ford Motor Company:
"Oh no, you can't blame our SUVs for the
Paul Crawford posted
499a9626.80...@sat.dundee.ac.uk, excerpted below, on Tue, 17 Feb 2009
10:49:10 +:
> Dear Duncan,
>> The above claim, that under Linux, files are created with default
>> permission 644, is simply not accurate. It's too general (perhaps
>> certain distributions, not "Linu
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
> different bug that also occurred on Ubuntu with certain library
> versions. In that case, pan when run on GNOME, but NOT when run on XFCE
> or on KDE, would stall for some period (like it was in a loop that
> repeatedl
freeslkr posted
gn87u5$4g...@ger.gmane.org, excerpted below, on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 05:07:18
+:
> Maybe it's this _very_annoying_ bug?
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=533686
Hmm. I've seen a couple mentions of that behavior, but have never
actually observed it, neither on either
Dear Duncan,
The above claim, that under Linux, files are created with default
permission 644, is simply not accurate. It's too general (perhaps
certain distributions, not "Linux") and lacks a description of the vital
role umask plays in determining default file permissions.
I have just trie
Steven D'Aprano posted
200902171110.00439.st...@pearwood.info, excerpted below, on Tue, 17 Feb
2009 11:10:00 +1100:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:30:55 am Paul Crawford wrote:
>> I just tried saving a suspect file of the avi.exe sort to see how it
>> behaved under LINUX using Pan 0.132 and I found it
13 matches
Mail list logo
