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 20:36:19 -0500 From: "Pierre A. Humblet" To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: NTEA extensions for uid/gid Message-ID: <20030128013619.GA33883849@hpn5170x> Mail-Followup-To: "Pierre A. Humblet" , 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. The following line will remove unnecessary execute permissions on all files under the pwd, in a cygwintelligent manner CYGWIN=nontsec find . ! -perm -111 -print0 | env -u CYGWIN xargs -0 chmod a-x Thanks for your tests, they confirm that Cygwin works as designed. But we still don't know if the new design solves Christian Mueller's problems. Pierre -- 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/