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 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:52:00 -0500 From: Jon LaBadie To: cygwin Subject: Re: ssh-host-config suggestion (was: Re: Updated: OpenSSH-3.5p1-1) Message-ID: <20021106175200.GA16885@butch.jgcomp.com> References: <20021106153438 DOT K2180 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <15817 DOT 18485 DOT 56727 DOT 29262 AT jupiter DOT akutech-local DOT de> <20021106181026 DOT C2180 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021106181026.C2180@cygbert.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:10:26PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > - could `chown' be modified to complain if it fails to do the work it > > was supposed to do? It seems that the exit status is 0, and besides > > that the script simply does not care about the exit status of chown. > > Tricky. The problem (and the reason the script doesn't test the return > code) is, there are several conditions for having a working chown. It > must be NT/2K/XP, ntsec must be on, FS must be NTFS. The chown(2) syscall > returns intentionally always 0 if any of these conditions isn't met. That behavior seems rather "non-unix-like". If chown(2) fails to work shouldn't return an error status, and possibly set ERRNO. Then chown(1) could report a reasonable error message and exit status. The script could continue to ignore the chown(1) success or failure at its own peril. -- Jon H. LaBadie jcyg AT jgcomp DOT com JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road (609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax) -- 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/