Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: as one gets roots - rights ... From: Robert Collins To: Norbert Pfeiffer Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: <010f01c233d8$9d55e5c0$1f00a8c0@npf> References: <006101c2336f$6a69cbe0$1f00a8c0 AT npf> <007101c233c9$9ef90c40$0100a8c0 AT wdg DOT uk DOT ibm DOT com> <010f01c233d8$9d55e5c0$1f00a8c0 AT npf> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 25 Jul 2002 22:44:39 +1000 Message-Id: <1027601080.14041.2.camel@lifelesswks> Mime-Version: 1.0 On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 22:41, Norbert Pfeiffer wrote: > Hi Max, > > thanks, goes naturally also. > This is IMHO a very quick and dirty hack, > because it is valid only for this problem. Actually, most unix based code that blindly requires root rights to perform operations is broken. Such code won't run correctly in an environment with capabilities, or granular permissions, or other similar behaviour. Adding cygwin specific tests is one approach, but still flawed. IMO the correct approach is to test to see whether the action can be completed, and if it can not be, croak at that point, rather than assuming some arbitrary external condition ust be true before trying. Anyway, just my 43c :}. Rob -- 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/