Message-ID: <4C1FD7FD.6010805@tlinx.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:22:05 -0700
From: Linda Walsh <cygwin@tlinx.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "cygwin@cygwin.com" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: Bug report / Cygwin prob...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

I have two accounts on my client machine.  One is me@workstation,
the other is me@Domain.  They are both me and I need to have them
be able access each other's files mostly transparently.  

As a result, in windows, I setup a group (megroup) that contains both 
me and me!  (@workstation/@domain) and set files to be owned 
by "megroup", *argh, matey!*

Cygwin shows them owned by "-1" (in hex) -- not a very useful number!  
Is it really the case that the windows API returns -1 for the ownership
of this file?  I made sure that megroup is in the /etc/password file
(as copied from its /etc/group entry).

So why is cygwin complaining?  I noticed that it doesn't like it when
I try to 'chown' using 'megroup' either!  

So wazzup?  Does cygwin specifically check for 'megroup's, and invalidate
them if they are groups?  Why not just acknowledge that they are 
owned by the SID that they are and display it as such?

ARG! megroup is bein attacked by pirates!!!  :-)

Linda

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple