On Aug 14, 2:41 pm, Tony Mechelynck <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/08/10 06:29, John wrote: > > Hi all, > > > I'm using Vim 7.2.411 on Windows XP (from the Cream web site), to edit > > files hosted on a linux server. I have the linux directory as a > > Windows mapped network drive (via samba). > > > If via the linux box, I set the permissions on a file to 775, I can > > edit and save the file in Notepad and Wordpad, through the mapped > > network drive, and the permissions are retained. But if I do the same > > editing in Vim, saving the file reverts its permissions to 644. > > > I'm getting sick of typing 'chmod 775'... and I'd rather not use .*pad > > - any tips? > > > Thank you, > > John > > Try using > :set backupcopy=yes > > This should overwrite the old file with the new version (using a copy > for the backup if any) thus preserving any attributes the file may have. > The alternative is renaming the old file as backup and creating a new > file for the new version (which is faster, but may sometimes lose some > attributes, e.g. when editing from Windows a network file on a Unix server). > > See :help 'backupcopy' > > Best regards, > Tony. > -- > The word "spine" is, of course, an anagram of "penis". This is true in > almost fifty percent of the languages of the Galaxy, and many people > have attempted to explain why. Usually these explanations get bogged > down in silly puns about "standing erect". > -- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Thanks for the suggestion Tony - the plot did thicken a little with this tip. If I set the file as 777, then set backupcopy to yes, then save it, it goes to (and stays at) 655. If I then set backupcopy to auto, as it was originally on Windows, then save, the file goes to 644. Either way, the user execute bit on my script is being removed - but the treatment of group/other execute bits surprised me. It certainly looks to me like some kind of file mask problem and I very much suspected Samba settings - but the fact that notepad and wordpad get it right suggests it's got to be something about the windows vim implementation alone? I tried going back to the very first 7.0 release, but the behaviour was the same. I've tried from two different computers (both XP) - same behaviour. Aaron - thanks for the reply - but I don't understand quite what you mean. From where should I be running the umask command - vim? windows? linux? -- You received this message from the "vim_use" 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
