X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:43:05 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: rebaseall failures, propsal Message-ID: <20101008154305.GC23848@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <4CADC267 DOT 1080306 AT gmx DOT de> <20101008134332 DOT GA3324 AT tishler DOT net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101008134332.GA3324@tishler.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 09:43:32AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: >On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 02:51:51PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: >> Jason, could you possibly make sure that rebase (or rebaseall) makes >> all files to be rebased writeable? > >Yes. > >> perlrebase does just that: >> >> cat rebase$suff.lst | xargs chmod u+w >> rebase -v -b $baseaddr -T rebase$suff.lst >> cat rebase$suff.lst | xargs chmod u-w >> >> ...which might work more or less the same for rebaseall. > >However, IMO, having rebaseall change the permissions of files seems >wrong. Nevertheless, if the consensus agrees with the above proposal, >then I will change rebaseall accordingly. Opinions? I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to change the permissions and then changing them back when done. I don't think you should be leaving them writable. cgf -- 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