X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Authenticated:	#27081556
X-Provags-ID:	V01U2FsdGVkX18KxVRpKIwKjVc9x6LtS1RDssPuDxR2VJMUzgdlEz
	agRj8f999TmOv3
From:	Juan Manuel Guerrero <juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: setegid/seteuid and setresgid/setresuid implementation
Date:	Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:43:24 +0100
User-Agent:	KMail/1.9.10
References:	<200911250227 DOT 47642 DOT juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de> <200911250158 DOT nAP1wHKw010491 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<200911250158.nAP1wHKw010491@envy.delorie.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Message-Id:	<200911250343.24677.juan.guerrero@gmx.de>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted:	0
X-FuHaFi:	0.67
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Am Mittwoch, 25. November 2009 schrieb DJ Delorie:
> 
> DOS has no concept of any of those anyway, so any implementations
> would have to be fake.

Yes, of course.  I inspected setuid and setgid and I was surprised a little bit
that something similar was not done for setegid/seteuid.

May intension was to implement such a fake implementation.  But because that had
still not be done, the question arised if it would be possible.


> Why does m4 need setresgid ?
 
I started the port today so I still have not a deep insight but for some reason
m4 requires the use of gnulibs implementation of spawni.c (their implementation
of a posix spwn interface) and certain function sets the process group id and
the effective user and group id.  May be it time to start tinking about a djgpp
specific  implementation of posix spawn* family of functions.
The compilation of that  file also terminates with an error because djgpp does
not define ESTALE.  Something more to define even if that kind of errors are
not handled by djgpp.

- Raw text -