This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: NTFS write-protect flag translation (tar? rsync?) only one-way?
- From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:33:57 -0400
- Subject: Re: NTFS write-protect flag translation (tar? rsync?) only one-way?
- References: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On 4/5/2011 8:35 PM, Christian Gelinek wrote:
From: Cygwin On Behalf Of Larry Hall (Cygwin)
On 4/5/2011 3:36 AM, Christian Gelinek wrote:
It appears that when tar reads files for adding to archives, it
correctly interprets the Windows-set "R" attribute, which is also seen by
ls under Cygwin. After extracting the files using tar though, only
Cygwin's ls command seems to be aware of the read-only attribute; the
attrib command (as well as Explorer and other Windows-apps) see and
handle the file as being writeable.
The read-only attribute is a "Windows" thing. Cygwin's utilities focus on
supporting POSIXy/Linuxy ways of doing things. You can't expect Cygwin's
tools to manage all of Window's permission facilities in the same way as
Windows does. The read-only flag is one case where you'll see a divergence.
If you need that flag set, you'll need your own wrapper to set it based on
the POSIX (or ACL) permissions. The read-only attribute really is quite
anachronistic though IMO. It conflicts with the more powerful ACLs. If
you have the option, it's better not to use that flag.
IMO the behaviour is inconsistent if the flag is used/interpreted on one (the
read) operation but NOT being written/changed on the other (write) operation.
My approach would be either drop it completely or support it on both ends
(the preferred option).
Actually, the read-only attribute is not used by Cygwin to determine POSIX
By the looks of it (see
http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2002-05/msg00317.html), this problem has
been addressed and potentially solved before, so I wonder if something is
No, nothing is broken. Things have changed since 2002. If you want the gory
details, you can look in the email archives. The short of it is, making
read-only, Windows ACLs, and POSIX permissions all agree is overly
complicated. So we've dropped read-only support now.
The background to all this is that I am using RCS (I know, almost as
anachronistic as the read-only attribute, but that's dictated by my
workplace) under both Windows and Linux and RCS relies heavily on the
read-only attribute of files to be correct. IMO, it wouldn't hurt if the
Cygwin tools would write the Windows read-only attribute when they create a
Cygwin read-only file?
Cygwin has a package for RCS. Perhaps that could solve your problem?
Q: Are you sure?
A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple