Plus the -s just changes the suid bit and leaves the rest of the access
as is. By spelling out the whole thing you are changing everything (or
nothing if it was right to begin with). Which I think is what Axalon is
saying in his own way. =)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Axalon Bloodstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 2:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [expert] Minicom user question -- SOLVED!
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, John Aldrich wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, you wrote:
> > > On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Benjamin Sher wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Axalon:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks so very much for your advice. I will try to
> implement it next
> > > > time I reinstall my system (when 7.1 comes out) unless
> there is a way to
> > > > undo what I have already done.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks so much again.
> > > >
> > > > Benjamin
> > >
> > > chmod 2755 /usr/bin/minicom
> > >
> > Would that be the same as "chmod -s /usr/bin/minicom"??
> > John
>
> well yes and no, i use that method because i don't know the current
> permissions, this way i know it's exactly as it should
> according to the
> .spec file. You might get the same results but it's just
> safer to ensure
> it's as it "should be"
>
> --
> MandrakeSoft http://www.mandrakesoft.com/
> --Axalon
>
