Richard Owlett wrote: > I wish to have all users of all Debian installs on my laptop have > unrestricted access to everything on a particular partition. It was > suggested adding a line to /etc/fstab would accomplish my goal.
I saw that thread, and the suggestion, but didn't comment then because I had not run the experiment myself yet. And David Christensen had an excellent suggestion in that thread to use group level access permissions. I would definitely do that instead. But though I didn't comment then I will go back and make a comment now. > On rebooting it failed with a "missing mount point" message. As root > I did a mkdir. For any mount point you will need to have a directory to mount it upon. > There were no error messages on the next reboot. Right. Mounted it by root as user:group root:root. As it was configured to do. > However when I displayed the directory with Nautilus, the icons for > all existing files and folders were flagged with the lock icon > adjacent. Yes. Makes sense to me. > They had been created under a Debian install which no longer is > present. This sentence came from somewhere but I know not where. I think this may be something that should be discussed as its own topic. > Is this the expected result? Yes. > Will doing "chmod -R 777 /owlett" allow all users of any Debian > install having the edited /etc/fstab have unrestricted access to all > files and folders on that partition? That would be a bad thing to do for several reasons. One is that not all files should be executable. Mode 777 will make all files executable even files that should not be executable. Another is that if you ever copy a file out of there then the permissions will be preserved and elsewhere they will be the wrong permissions. Another is that doing that only fixes the current crop of files. As soon as you create a new file the problem will reappear with that new file. This just isn't going to work out well in the end. Don't do it! :-) In the previous thread: > How do I force all files to be written to that partition to be > readable AND writable to everybody? I didn't comment there previously but will go back and make one now. Because I think my response to it should be threaded there. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
