Hello All We've been talking about the broth for sooo long now, I almost don't remember what the initial request was.
But joking aside, I would like to thank you very much for the advertising that I have received again. I found the solution myself yesterday, like almost all the other questions I had asked for individually in this forum. Unfortunately, such "small" inquiries are simply discussed deeply and for a long time and philosophized heavily, unfortunately I didn't have that much time for this small inquiry. Meny meny Thanks again for everyone who has written to me here. please where do I go so I can unsubscribe here gently Maurizio -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [email protected] <[email protected]> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. April 2023 06:52 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: why symbolic link arnt visible? On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 04:09:12PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 08:20:37PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 01:28:11PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 07:06:17PM +0200, Maurizio Caloro wrote: > > > > f: /var/lib/rancid/routers/configs > > > > drwxr-xr-x root root / > > > > drwxr-xr-x root root var > > > > drwxr-xr-x root root lib > > > > drwxr-xr-x rancid rancid rancid > > > > drwxr-x--- rancid rancid routers > > > > drwxr-x--- rancid rancid configs > > > > > > The last two directories are missing world +x permission. This > > > means the web server process can't touch them -- can't enter them, > > > can't open files within them, etc. > > > > [...] > > > > I guess they need read permission too? > > Only if the web server process needs to generate a directory listing. > If it knows the file name in advance, read permission isn't needed -- > just execute. That's right. "Experimentally" confirmed :) I always had this (obviously mislead) notion that the web server checks read permission along the whole path to read-access a file. At least lighttpd doesn't (but I gues this kind of convention will be common to all servers). > > And the file itself, c3560, also needs read permissions. > > We don't know that, yet :) > > Yes, assuming the intent is to deliver the file's content, it'll need > read permission on the file itself. So, Maurizio -- to finish this riddle: what does "ls -l c3560" say? C'mon, the suspense is hard to bear ;-) Cheers -- t
