Greetings, Achim Gratz!
> David Allsopp writes:
>>> You have extended ACL on the object. And overall, umask is not a good
>>> idea in Windows.
>>
>> "umask is not a good idea in Windows" - where's that come from?
> Ask three people and get at least seven answers.
> Actually Windows is a red
On 2018-03-21 12:47, Achim Gratz wrote:
> David Allsopp writes:
>>> You have extended ACL on the object. And overall, umask is not a good
>>> idea in Windows.
>>
>> "umask is not a good idea in Windows" - where's that come from?
>
> Ask three people and get at least seven answers.
>
> Actually
David Allsopp writes:
>> You have extended ACL on the object. And overall, umask is not a good
>> idea in Windows.
>
> "umask is not a good idea in Windows" - where's that come from?
Ask three people and get at least seven answers.
Actually Windows is a red herring IMHO, it's the combination of
Ken Brown wrote:
> On 3/21/2018 6:36 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
> > Ken Brown
> >> On 3/19/2018 8:48 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
> >>> Is this expected behaviour:
> >>>
> >>> OPAM+DRA@OPAM ~
> >>> $ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir
> >>> /tmp/bar ; touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l
On 3/21/2018 6:27 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
>
> "umask is not a good idea in Windows" - where's that come from? (In the
> actual scenario where I'm being bitten by this, it's because a git checkout
> is altering files which were 644 to be 664, so whether it's precisely umask
> or not, the
On 3/21/2018 6:36 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
Ken Brown
On 3/19/2018 8:48 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
Is this expected behaviour:
OPAM+DRA@OPAM ~
$ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir /tmp/bar
; touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l /tmp/bar/foo CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW OPAM
2.10.0(0.325/5/3)
Greetings, David Allsopp!
> Andrey Repin wrote:
>> Greetings, David Allsopp!
>>
>> > Is this expected behaviour:
>>
>> > OPAM+DRA@OPAM ~
>> > $ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir /tmp/bar
>> > ; touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l /tmp/bar/foo CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW OPAM
>> >
Ken Brown
> On 3/19/2018 8:48 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
> > Is this expected behaviour:
> >
> > OPAM+DRA@OPAM ~
> > $ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir /tmp/bar
> > ; touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l /tmp/bar/foo CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW OPAM
> > 2.10.0(0.325/5/3) 2018-02-02 15:21 i686
Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, David Allsopp!
>
> > Is this expected behaviour:
>
> > OPAM+DRA@OPAM ~
> > $ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir /tmp/bar
> > ; touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l /tmp/bar/foo CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW OPAM
> > 2.10.0(0.325/5/3) 2018-02-02 15:21 i686
On 3/19/2018 8:48 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
Is this expected behaviour:
OPAM+DRA@OPAM ~
$ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir /tmp/bar ;
touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l /tmp/bar/foo
CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW OPAM 2.10.0(0.325/5/3) 2018-02-02 15:21 i686 Cygwin
0022
-rw-r--r-- 1 OPAM+DRA
Greetings, David Allsopp!
> Is this expected behaviour:
> OPAM+DRA@OPAM ~
> $ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir /tmp/bar ;
> touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l /tmp/bar/foo
> CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW OPAM 2.10.0(0.325/5/3) 2018-02-02 15:21 i686 Cygwin
> 0022
> -rw-r--r-- 1 OPAM+DRA
On 03/19/2018 08:49 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
Is this expected behaviour:
OPAM+DRA@OPAM ~
$ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir /tmp/bar ;
touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l /tmp/bar/foo
CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW OPAM 2.10.0(0.325/5/3) 2018-02-02 15:21 i686 Cygwin
0022
-rw-r--r-- 1
Is this expected behaviour:
OPAM+DRA@OPAM ~
$ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir /tmp/bar ;
touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l /tmp/bar/foo
CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW OPAM 2.10.0(0.325/5/3) 2018-02-02 15:21 i686 Cygwin
0022
-rw-r--r-- 1 OPAM+DRA OPAM+None 0 Mar 19 13:44 /tmp/foo
13 matches
Mail list logo