acmeinc wrote:
> One last thing
>
> have you tried;
>
> setfacl -s
"setfacl -s" is not documented, and also gives "illegal option -- s"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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 per
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 c
You may consider trying chmod 660 filename.
660 -> UGW, user group world. For each read, write, and execute is
given a number, 4,2,1 repectively. So, 660 would result in rw-rw, a
popluar format is 755, rwxr-xr-x. You would simply replace add the numbers
together for each division and
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:
