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
Message-ID: <3E5F7781.EA6E28FB@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:51:45 -0500
From: "Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre DOT Humblet AT ieee DOT org>
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin=ntsec:[no]strict
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0302280855070 DOT 25599-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:48:44PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> > >I would refrain from doing any such thing until both:
> > >- 1.3.21 is out. Unfortunately 1.3.20 has a bug that degrades the mapping
> > >  between acl and permissions, for files created by non-ntsec programs
> > >  (such as setup). Also sh "test" (and soon bash and /bin/test (?)) will
> > >  reflect the *true* permissions in 1.3.21.
> >
> > I'll release a version of sh-utils shortly.
> 
> I don't know if this is a good time to bring up the "ls ntsec color"
> patch...  I saw many people paste the output of "ls -l" with nary a second
> thought that had '????????' all over the place.  Had it been in different
> color, one that people wouldn't expect, I doubt they would have missed it,
> and their questions would have been much more targeted (perhaps even
> redirected to the FAQ).
> 
> I realize that we'd be changing the "stock" version of "ls" to suit
> Cygwin, but if we do it with "test" anyway, we might as well make it
> easier for people to detect errors...  Unless the new ntsec-aware setup
> makes that unnecessary (and what about users added after setup, or domain
> users other than the installing one?).
>         Igor

Unless people go out of their way to undo the installation
(such as deleting accounts from passwd for "security" reasons)
there should be no ???????? if an updated mk{passwd, group} 
is run by setup.

So I would not start changing ls until the previous paragraph
has been proved to be wishful thinking.

Pierre