X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=qC HiUK8OTwzqRdPGrmwYXH0how8/vWvzWqwPRelMsO2tIxsqmAHAiKSCT1sEmaFmG6 qTtVnmgxLkLw2SIFa3jmAXgVgsEbPdP4JfyQL6Ll7zlx4n2kG4l9Yv7aXmjSu2Oa bkdkAIScEMwnWmuJKiPiDRDyc52n1fcFHpii90IYg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s=default; bh=hkz6Np4h Y7L7fbGCx84WNeCSbt8=; b=gA5JcNuXLA/LabHuusaxPSO/AQgaWGjN0DtpzqCL 8t81at2BfiA3hwh7SEnMMoHOaEkvoO+cvaOsGQVZqCuqAeASqrghJ/cJZltSdI2V WDB5mNWwLUAiUitaS6PcXH2qw5pJdrfA4yYrnKCn0XnFNBOKL0shOGtiXHgLfjzs Dis= 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 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-lb0-f178.google.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.225.43 with SMTP id rh11mr10434533lbc.90.1428873548648; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 14:19:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 17:19:08 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.0.0-3 From: Bryan Berns To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi Cygwin friends and users, > > > New 2.0.0-0.3 test release. It's supposed to fix the pty chmod problem > reported in https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-04/msg00240.html > Just a note: In 2.0.0-0.2, creating a file using touch on the root of one of my drives resulted in the with the Windows GUI Security tabs complaining about ACE order on the resultant file. In 2.0.0-0.3, Windows does not complain and the ACL looks quite a bit different (shown below). Not sure if this is a problem or not --- just wanted to report the difference in case your fix had an unintended side affect. Given my heart skips a beat when I see DENY ACEs, I like the new behavior behavior better. V:\>icacls v: v: BUILTIN\Administrators:(OI)(CI)(F) NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(OI)(CI)(F) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(OI)(CI)(M) BUILTIN\Users:(OI)(CI)(RX) Output from file created from 2.0.0-0.3: V:\>icacls touch-from-3 touch-from-3 DOMAIN\Administrator:(R,W,D,WDAC,WO) DOMAIN\Domain Users:(R) Everyone:(R) BUILTIN\Administrators:(F) NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(F) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(M) BUILTIN\Users:(RX) Successfully processed 1 files; Failed processing 0 files Output from file created from 2.0.0-0.2: V:\>icacls touch-from-2 touch-from-2 NULL SID:(DENY)(Rc,S,WEA,X,DC) DOMAIN\Administrator:(R,W,D,WDAC,WO) DOMAIN\Domain Users:(DENY)(S,X) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(DENY)(S,X) BUILTIN\Users:(DENY)(S,X) DOMAIN\Domain Users:(RX) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(RX,W) NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(RX,W) BUILTIN\Administrators:(RX,W) BUILTIN\Users:(RX) Everyone:(R) Successfully processed 1 files; Failed processing 0 files -- 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