Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<002901c33dec$7462bcf0$395d79d9@cp250405a>
From:	"Harald Houppermans" <houppermans AT home DOT nl>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0306282256180 DOT 22307-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Subject:	Re: free pascal cross compiler from windows to linux working.
Date:	Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:13:46 +0200
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300

> > I am just wondering if the free pascal compiler can set these permission
> > automatically for the linux executables.
>
> The permissions probably *are* set by the compiler, but copying the files
> to Linux destroys permissions unless you give the "-p" option to cp/scp.
> Transferring executables via ftp will probably destroy permissions also.

Hmm sounds reasonable :)

On the other hand... how would the compiler store these permission in the
file ????

Windows probably hasn't permissions like unix does.

So unless permission are part of the linux executable format... it probably
doesn't exist ?

Seems logical :)

And therefore have to be set... hmmmm.....

BUTTTT on the other hand... I did here some talk about having a compiler set
permissions...

But that was probably just an idea :)

>
> > ( Is that the right term, linux executables ? :) )
> >
> > So other weird red hat linux server behaviour... I have to use:  ./hello
> > ( just hello does work on knoppix )
> >
> > That's probably a red hat linux server setting... ./ means current
folder...
> >
> > Just wondering what that is all about.
>
> "." is not in the PATH by default on most Unixes, as that introduces a
> security hole.

Why is putting the current path in the path variable a security hole ?

>
> > I ll bet I'll also write a tutorial so others can do it.
> >
> > Also with a little side note why I want it... many asked why not install
> > linux.
> >
> > My short answer would be: 1. no space. 2. I read linux can destroy NTFS
> > partitions :)
> >
> > Since I have windows xp ntfs and windows 98 fat32 paritions I don't want
> > that now do I :)
> > Later.
>
> IMHO, it's unlikely that Linux can destroy NTFS partitions that it only
> has read-only access to.  I've been wrong before, though...

Well it sounds to scary for me :D



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -