Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:36:10 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Shell scripts [was Re: Avoiding /etc/passwd and /etc/group scans]
Message-ID: <20021023023610.GA25192@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3DB5A076 DOT ABAFF076 AT ieee DOT org> <20021022191217 DOT GD4828 AT redhat DOT com> <3DB5AB53 DOT B434ED90 AT ieee DOT org> <20021022202004 DOT GA6995 AT redhat DOT com> <20021022203300 DOT GC6429 AT redhat DOT com> <3DB5BC04 DOT CD6587CB AT ieee DOT org> <20021022212028 DOT GG6429 AT redhat DOT com> <3DB5C3C4 DOT F57CE7B0 AT ieee DOT org> <3 DOT 0 DOT 5 DOT 32 DOT 20021022210518 DOT 008282a0 AT mail DOT attbi DOT com> <3 DOT 0 DOT 5 DOT 32 DOT 20021022220428 DOT 0082e750 AT h00207811519c DOT ne DOT client2 DOT attbi DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20021022220428.0082e750@h00207811519c.ne.client2.attbi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:04:28PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>I'm willing to be swayed on this but, so far, it doesn't seem like anyone
>>is effectively communicating with anyone else here.  We need to get on
>>the same page wrt the problems and how we are going to solve them.
>
>That's a tough one. 
>
>I see 3 possible ways:
>1) Your current way. Magic => executable. 
>   Convenient but chmod is broken and big break with Unix.
>2) use another CYGWIN= variable, to make that feature optional.
>3) use nontsec if you are not willing to 'chmod a+x foo'
>
>I think I would vote for 3.

I guess I have to agree.  It's too ugly to live like this.  Unless there
are objections, the party line will be "either chmod your files or
revert to nontsec".

I'll put things back the way they were, more or less modulo some
formatting fixups.

>I would also distribute a script or a program to chmod all scripts
>in a tree. Under user control, not from setup. 
>
>Also, you have
>     buf->st_mode |= STD_XBITS; 
>so there will be x bits even when it isn't readable. 
>That can be improved easily, for 1 or 2 or the script.

I hadn't really changed anything from the prior implementation other
than to move the test for '#!' out of the get_file_attributes != 0
condition.  The file is certainly readable if you've just figured out
that it began with '#!' by reading the first two characters.

Thanks for helping to think this through.

I guess we're back to making some kind of change in setup.exe or
telling people exactly what they need to do to fix their system
in some kind of document or popup.  A post-install script could
easily popup a message if required.

cgf