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: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:26:55 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: CYGWIN=ntsec:[no]strict
Message-ID: <20030228032655.GA22913@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

I was wondering if it would make sense to have cygwin default to
a somewhat looser interpretation of POSIX correctness wrt protections.
I was considering that maybe a file with a .exe, .bat, .cmd extension
should always be considered executable regardless of protection.

It seems like we are consistently confusing people who, after an
install, find that their programs are not considered to be executable by
cygwin.  I'm not sure why this is happening (does someone understand this?)
but it seems like just reverting to the behavior where a file with a .exe
extension is always considred a+x would relieve this problem.

I don't like making this undefeatable however, so I was thinking that
adding a "[no]strict" option to ntsec might be a way to avoid this
behavior.  So, CYGWIN=ntsec:strict would emulate the current behavior
where CYGWIN=ntsec:nostrict (my proposed default) would use the above
indicated behavior.

Is this a stupid idea?

cgf