Proposed change for Win9x file permissions...
Sat May 24 20:35:00 GMT 2003
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 01:55:30PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I like the idea but I'm wondering if it is too general. Corinna, what do
>> you think?
> I like the idea as well but wouldn't that eventually cause problems if
> the umask disables the user bits? I'm a bit concerned about the new
> arriving questions on the cygwin ML due to applications checking these
> bits in combination with clueless users. It would be better, IMHO, if
> the umask couldn't mask the user bits at all, just the group and other
Will anything or anyone ever set a umask masking user bits?
It seems like a very unlikely corner case.
I suppose someone might *want* to set such a umask, though, if they really
needed to test permissions behaviour on Win9x.
I can't see a clueless user figuring out how to change the umask at all, so
since the default doesn't mask user access, we should be safe from
unnecessary questions, shouldn't we?
More information about the Cygwin-patches