> It is easily fixable by mounting directories outside Cygwin tree with "noacl" flag. > It is even required to do so, if you expect interoperation between Cygwin and > native tools.
Indeed, this is acceptable workaround for me. Then again it is not really interoperable out of the box, even tho it may looks like. I mean all Windows drives are mounted, you can easily jump through all directories, mess with them until you find that it doesn't work and it is " required" to access those files differently. One may be fooled by the seemingly no boundary between Cygwin and Windows. > Don't do that on Cygwin directory tree, you break Cygwin doing this. I was talking about project cloned outside Cygwin tree, by using Cygwin's git. I do understand that Cygwin sysroot is it's own thing. Also the Cygwin tree have let say "normal" permissions set. I mean there is not deny on SYSTEM and so on. > Answered multiple time in the last 20 years. Read the docs. If it were so easy to find. And it was changed like 5 years ago how ACLs are handled, so I really doubt it was described 20 years ago. I just wanted to understand why SYSTEM described in Cygwin's docs as "A special account which has all kinds of dangerous rights, sort of an uber-root account." have those rights limited. > They are in correct order. Just not canonical order, which Explorer only supports. I was not implying they are in incorrect order... The question was, could Cygwin apart from having permissions in correct order, have them in Explorer compatible order also? > Yes. Thank you for comprehensive answer. -Kacper -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
