X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <49B22717.5020508@columbus.rr.com> Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:49:43 -0500 From: Paul McFerrin Reply-To: pmcferrin AT columbus DOT rr DOT com User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Turning off execute permission Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 I've been reading: http://cygwin.com/1.7/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html#ntsec-files on the execute permissions. Did I read that it was impossible to deny execute permissions?? In my tests, the follow is always "true" if a file has no execute permissions: (mode 666 or 000) [ -x apachectl ] test -x apachectl for all of the shells Did I uncover a bug somewhere or is this a "feature"?? I guess my alternative would to use the "read" permission bit and just rename the file to effective disable it. If there is no real execute bit because of Windows ACLs, then that statement should be explicitly stated if its in order. If that is the reason you'll trying to say in section titled " The POSIX permission mapping leak", can/should it be a little more explicit? -- 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/