Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/10/22/17:17:47
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 04:51:34PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>
>> I guess I have to look at the code. A file with a .exe extension is
>> supposed to be executable by default. It should even show up as -x.
>>
>That's without ntsec. With ntsec Cygwin reads the Windows ACL and
>attempts to translate it to Unix modes.
>
>The executability of a file (ultimately by Windows) shouldn't depend on
>ntsec, although the mode displayed by ls -l does. With ntsec you can
>chmod 666 a.exe and it won't be executable (even by clicking on it),
>although ls -l with nontsec will show x (that's an item I didn't
>understand in Jason't recent mail).
Ok. So I just screwed cygwin up with my recent patch. I made ls -l
always display -x for .exe files but the file is not really executable
by windows. Guess I'll revert that.
So, should I also revert the '#!' detection, too? That won't be
affected by the same scenario since the execution is controlled
completely from cygwin.
So, anyway, how are we getting non-executable .exe files, then?
>Jason raised another issue:
>> My WAG is that /bin is 700 and owned by Administrators which causes
>> setup.exe to create .exe files with the same permissions.
>I have not followed setup, so ignore the questions if they are worn out:
>- Does setup attempt to control the modes of the files it unpack?
IIRC, Corinna added some code to setup to set intelligent defaults.
>- Do the modes depend on the value of ntsec when setup is run
> (e.g. inheriting from the directory)?
Nope. setup isn't a cygwin app, so...
cgf
- Raw text -