Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/01/28/05:17:10
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:30:35PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > In any case, seeing the behaviour of the exec-permission bits, I have a
> > "wouldn't it be nice if...": wouldn't it be nice if the executable
> > permission bits would actually correspond to the executability
> > of a file? I mean, an explorer-created empty file is definitely not
> > executable - notably because it's empty.
> The following line will remove unnecessary execute permissions on
> all files under the pwd, in a cygwintelligent manner
> CYGWIN=nontsec find . ! -perm -111 -print0 | env -u CYGWIN xargs -0 chmod a-x
Thanx (I especially like the "cygwintelligent" part) :)
> Thanks for your tests, they confirm that Cygwin works as designed.
> But we still don't know if the new design solves Christian Mueller's
> problems.
The only one that can tell you that is Christian Mueller.
I would be more than willing, however, to do more tests (so here's another
"wouldn't it be nice if..." ... there was a testsuite available (outside
of the sources, and without having to compile Cygwin yourself).
The problem, in fact, is that I'd like to help out on Cygwin itself, but I
don't have a copyright waiver and can't get one for the time being*, so I
can only help out by testing stuff and reporting the results.
rlc
* long story: I got one from my old job just before they went bankrupt and
I didn't have a job anymore (don't remember whether I actually got around
to sending it in). I'm at my new job since a couple of months now, and
they're not really the philantropic type. Some may recall that I was about
to do some work on the fhandlers a while back - in fact, the only thing
standing in the way was the copyright waiver... :|
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -