Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/08/20/13:16:31
> 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?
A Windows text editor called Zeus.
I have been altering the C source code and some configureation and
gcc/makefile but AFAICT nothing that should effect gcc/configure though.
Its all very odd.
Hopefully I shall get to the bottom of it if I perservere, but any help or
suggestions are welcome.
Aaron
--
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 -