Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010213121742.019bee18@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:21:36 -0500
To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com, Malcolm Boekhoff <Malcolm.Boekhoff@actfs.co.uk>
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall@rfk.com>
Subject: Re: chmod and ntsec
In-Reply-To: <3A8955E0.1C8E6544@yahoo.com>
References: <852569F1.005AA916.00@nyc-ntgw-n01.ny.jpmorgan.com>
 <004901c095a5$cb7419e0$275c100a@actfs.co.uk>
 <3A89409C.ED192DEA@yahoo.com>
 <007101c095d1$80844730$275c100a@actfs.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:42 AM 2/13/2001, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>Malcolm Boekhoff wrote:
> > 
> > So is the definitive, expert answer to use "ntsec" or "ntsec ntea"?
> > 
>
>The ntsec flag overrides the ntea flag IIRC.  There is no reason to use
>the ntea flag if you use the ntsec flag.  The ntea flag, IMO, should be
>removed in the next release as it can cause more consequence than good.


I guess the big question here is whether anyone finds the use of ntea useful
for FAT partitions.  This is the one advantage that ntea has over ntsec.  If
the answer here is that ntea is considered useful for FAT despite the ugly,
quickly growing file it produces, then I'd say keep it.  Just my $.02.


Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple