Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/08/20/12:54:57
On 20 August 2007 17:42, Aaron Gray wrote:
>> On Aug 20 16:20, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> BTW, you didn't by any chance use winzip to unpack the tarball did you?
>
> No.
Just checking. Windoze tools don't generally do the right thing for
cygwin's emulation of posix perms.
>> Apart from that, the file permission settings are the same in Vista
>> compared to older OSes. The exception is the UAC stuff which could
>> result in some executables having less permissions than usual, if, for
>> instance, Internet Explorer has been used to download the executable.
>> We can hopefully rule this out here, so it's just some permission
>> problem which has nothing to do with the base OS.
I want to throw an AYS in Corinna's general direction here... one of the
ongoing problems in 'doze security since waaaay back when is that the default
perms for user-created files, the equivalent of the default umask under posix,
have always been pretty wide open: AYS they haven't been tightened up for
Vista?
> Works fine on XP. The only things that are diferent are the Cygwin
> instillation and Vista.
Heh, so that's a bit like saying "The only things that are different are
everything, apart from the gcc source code".
> Unmodified GCC 4.2.0 compiles okay, but when modified cracks appear, only on
> Vista though, XP is okay. So must be something to do with permissions.
So, what tool did you use to 'modify' it?
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
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 -