acmeinc wrote: > You may consider trying chmod 660 filename. It gives the same result. When changing group permission (either way) on a file with acls, you're effectively changing the acl mask instead. Also, if I change acl mask with setfacl, then ls -l will list the permission mask in the group columns in the output.
If this is by design, then it isn't documented in chmod(1) (or anywhere else that I can see). It kinda makes sense this way, though. If you chmod the group permission, you change all groups' permissions. But I'd like to see it documented, as it caused me some confusion, and I still think that this isn't obvious. > Svein Halvor Halvorsen-4 wrote: >> If I have acls enabled on a file, running chmod g=rw on that file, >> will not change its group permissions, but the acl mask. >> >> That is, running the following command: >> $ chmod g=rw foo >> >> ... is equivalent with >> $ setfacl -m m::rw- >> >> ... and not, as I would suspect: >> $ setfacl -m g::rw- >> >> In other words, foo will not be read/writable by its default group >> after the command have been run (unless it was already). >> >> I find this behaviour to be very confusing. It might be the correct >> bahaviour, but if so maybe the chmod(1) manpage, and possibly >> chmod(2), should be updated to document this? >> >> >> Svein Halvor >> >> >> >> >
Description: OpenPGP digital signature