One last thing.... have you tried;
setfacl -s i notice you have -m in your original post. Other than this, I won't have any other insight. Svein Halvor Halvorsen-4 wrote: > > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ACLs%2C-permission-mask-and-chmod-g%3D-tp18893185p18900042.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"