Proposed change for Win9x file permissions...
Mon May 26 17:13:00 GMT 2003
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 11:34:46AM -0400, Bill C Riemers wrote:
> I'm not saying there won't be problems if someone using this patch does something like:
> umask 777
> I'm just saying it is a recoverable mistake. The umask local to the current process at it's children only. Executables should
> still execute, but scripts probably won't. However, just changing the umask back to something more reasonable recovers the file
> permissions. So even the person who edits the change into their .profile or /etc/profile will be able to restore the previous
Ok, we should just try it, I guess. Chris? Ok to check in?
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:email@example.com
Red Hat, Inc.
More information about the Cygwin-patches