I recently updated from 1.3.19 to 1.3.20. Setup picked up a few new
packages like gcc, ncurses, etc. After the update, the new executables
and files had permission problems for other users of my (XP) box.
From reading the mailing list, I thought this might be due to a directory
permission
Brian Ford wrote:
Here is an example:
ls -l /bin/make.exe
-rwx--+ 1 ford None 156160 May 11 2002 make.exe
getfacl -a /bin/make.exe
# file: make.exe
# owner: ford
# group: None
user::rwx
group::---
group:SYSTEM:rwx
group:Administrators:rwx
group:Users:r-x
mask:rwx
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Brian Ford wrote:
Here is an example:
ls -l /bin/make.exe
-rwx--+ 1 ford None 156160 May 11 2002 make.exe
getfacl -a /bin/make.exe
# file: make.exe
# owner: ford
# group: None
user::rwx
group::---
group:SYSTEM:rwx
Brian Ford wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Yep. It's impossible to fully represent an ACL in traditional Unix
permissions.
That's fine.
Trying to execute make in bash via PATH for other users results in
make not found. But, trying to execute /usr/bin/make works fine for
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Brian Ford wrote:
Why are shells and such confused by this, though?
Well, that scan PATH, looking for executables and if file they see isn't
executable, they ignore it.
Isn't that a bug if they don't use the ACL's for OS's that have 'em?
--
Brian Ford wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Brian Ford wrote:
Why are shells and such confused by this, though?
Well, that scan PATH, looking for executables and if file they
see isn't executable, they ignore it.
Isn't that a bug if they don't use the ACL's for OS's that
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 12:04:07AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
Brian Ford wrote:
I strongly vote for Users.
Actually, the currently proposed patch decides based on the group membership
of the user running setup. But it might be better for this to be a choosable
option.
It's Users when
7 matches
Mail list logo
