On 6/23/2015 7:35 AM, Christian Brabandt wrote:
On Di, 23 Jun 2015, Ernie Rael wrote:
FYI: This just showed up on the cygwin mailing list, there is a
detailed analysis of the situation
The conclusion of the cygwin developer is
I think this is a bug in vim. The `if (!backup_copy)' is wrong. It
should always try to write the ACL on systems supporting them.
I think the intention was, that in the case of backupcopy=yes, the file
already has the ACLs so there is no need for it to be rewritten. I don't
know, why this would not work in Cygwin.
Not familiar with the code or cygwin internals, so I'm in no position to
argue the technical aspects. Looking at the cygwin analysis, in "small
vi" the steps on ":wq!" include
- set UNIX perms via chmod(2). Now perms are "broken" as above.
Which at least on cygwin, changes the underlying ACLs. So if it is
necessary for vim-small to use chmod, why isn't the ACL write needed?
Actually, would the ACL write be enough and the chmod not be needed?
If interested, the full thread is at
https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-06/msg00309.html . The thread points
out that "huge" works, "small" fails. And that the issue only shows up
with the particular ACL settings that that the user had.
-ernie
Best,
Christian
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
