Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:09:35 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: NTEA extensions for uid/gid Message-ID: <20030127140935.GT2117@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20030127094057.GJ2117@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:30:35PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > In any case, seeing the behaviour of the exec-permission bits, I have a > "wouldn't it be nice if...": wouldn't it be nice if the executable > permission bits would actually correspond to the executability > of a file? I mean, an explorer-created empty file is definitely not > executable - notably because it's empty. With ntsec on, stat() and friends report the permission bits set in the ACL. I wouldn't want to see anything else. The code using the mount info is only used when ntsec is off. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/