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
X-Authentication-Warning: slinky.cs.nyu.edu: pechtcha owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:53:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin=ntsec:[no]strict
In-Reply-To: <3E5F7781.EA6E28FB@ieee.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0302280950290.25599-100000@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:

> 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.

People have admitted to doing this, btw.

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

What about the "mkpasswd/mkgroup" group name?

Note that I don't mind being proven wrong - I don't like a separate Cygwin
branch of "ls" either.  Just trying to help...
	Igor
P.S. We can always keep this one in reserve, and see how much people
complain after the patched setup is released...
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune