Proposed change for Win9x file permissions...
Mon May 26 08:08:00 GMT 2003
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 04:10:10PM -0400, Bill C. Riemers wrote:
> > 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
> > bits.
> I seriously doubt it would result in serious problem, since the patch only
> changes the file permissions that are visible via a "stat()" command, not
> the actual permissions that Windows will use. Case and point: /cygdrive/c
> shows up with perms 000 under cygwin, but there are not any serious
> consequences of that bug, other than user confusion.
What I mean are applications calling stat and getting permissions back
which they don't like. E.g. a shell which checks the permissions and
refuses to run a script because it's not executable.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Red Hat, Inc.
More information about the Cygwin-patches