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: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:12:35 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin=ntsec:[no]strict
Message-ID: <20030228201235.GA13311@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0302280950290 DOT 25599-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <3E5F7B1D DOT 935B69A7 AT ieee DOT org> <20030228164519 DOT GA9304 AT redhat DOT com> <3E5F9829 DOT 6540A7F0 AT ieee DOT org> <20030228174133 DOT GD10456 AT redhat DOT com> <3E5FABB4 DOT C9A339B3 AT ieee DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3E5FABB4.C9A339B3@ieee.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:34:28PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:11:05PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >
>> >> Should we have cygcheck run 'id'?
>> >
>> >Yes
>> 
>> Ok.  I'm adding that now.
>
>Chris,
>
>Please make sure id runs with ntsec even if cygcheck
>runs with CYGWIN=nontsec.

Ok.  Thanks.  I never would have thought of this.

Does it make sense to run it both with and without ntsec or is only ntsec
interesting?

cgf