X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:30:17 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: permissions/owners seen on cygwin-client vs. server Message-ID: <20070820163017.GA12631@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <46C4E173.2070508@tlinx.org> <46C4E67F.50709@cygwin.com> <20070817071505.GL28407@calimero.vinschen.de> <46C610C7.1060300@tlinx.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 12:11:56PM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote: >On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Linda Walsh wrote: >>As for including cygcheck, I don't have a problem doing that when >>necessary, but I prefer to check that it's not some "braino", or that >>it is a "real" problem before attaching a full cygdump. > >How will we know if it's a real problem unless you include the cygcheck >output? Right. There is no harm in including it and, since it is more than likely that we'd need it, including it eliminates one information-free cycle of email. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/