DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=sMPt1AhRG1t+vFoc
	Lm8W9zOl+EP6SC4EL/ckIKKiTRgONv1IaPwmWUQOH3EdDJUy+VYVx38mu1Zc/0+m
	ZIPeKbocQ3G9PP5+FHPTSQHJ+/siKoKAxAIkFSscuGE7fZ3Qln5CsgMkGGdBZPji
	rWZNqojYzJWO6c2R75oYSAQGlN0=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-id: <5277D3B0.2010508@cygwin.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:04:48 -0500
From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: vi stealing SYSTEM-owned permissions and ownership
References: <5274F396 DOT A133C4CE AT boland DOT nl> <D7F32E9AFFD647458EB73E4ECBC03F3E AT NCC1701> <52757448 DOT 81FE6C53 AT boland DOT nl> <1139549616 DOT 20131103022620 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <527698EA DOT 16C8F45C AT boland DOT nl> <EF57884064F9460EBA1AA99C06CE8A67 AT NCC1701> <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40C672 AT MLBXv04 DOT nih DOT gov>
In-reply-to: <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40C672@MLBXv04.nih.gov>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

On 11/4/2013 9:50 AM, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
>>> Haha, yes. But if my students have to administer remote
>> production-machines, most of the time they have no other option. I want them
>> to succeed where others fail.
>
> Reading this thread, it looks like it digressed far away from the original point
> ($subject) as to why "vi" did not keep the original owner of an edited file.
> (also pointed out was that "nano" did)...  A reasonable expectation, IMO.

I noted the same thing (to myself).  When I looked at the information
provided, I was left with the distinct impression that the 'vi' in use
was not a Cygwin version.  The fact that the file edited with it had no
POSIX permissions was a red flag for me.  I was going to suggest checking
this but as the conversation had already drifted into other areas, it
seemed of small concern to the larger issues being discussed.

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
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