From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200106091647.SAA03549@mother.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: .files on servers are perceived as readonly
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 18:47:27 +0200 (MEST)
In-Reply-To: <1438-Sat09Jun2001145339+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jun 09, 2001 02:53:39 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > Because there's a readonly attribute. If you want a file readonly you
> > set this attribute not the SYSTEM or HIDDEN bits.
> 
> So you are saying that a file with a HIDDEN or SYSTEM attribute set

Those usually do have the readonly bit set too, so there ought not be
a problem.

> should look to a user of "ls -l" as a normal file?  How would that
> user then guess the reason for the strange behavior she observes when
> DOS commands and functions are invoked on those files?

Well, if he uses DOZE commands he's not using ls...

> In other words, the write bit in the Posix mode bits was the only way
> `stat' could relate to a program that such files are special.  It's
> not a bad approximation, given how many years it works without
> complaints.
> 
> Could you please explain what exactly is wrong with that?  Why did it
> annoy you that .cvsignore was shown as not writable?

1. As I said, it's a lie. The readonly bit isn't set so the file isn't
readonly.

2. Why it annoys me immensly is that I routinely do "cp -a
v:/my/cvs/tree/of/djgpp/src/* /djgpp/src.compiling/" while
developing. And now I get a ton of warnings from cp because the copy
made the previous run of cp is set to readonly.


Right,

						MartinS