> >Larry, I suspect "ls -l" showed files with permissions
> --+, which
> >Ron interpreted as 000 without noticing the ACL flag.
>
> Yes, I suspect this as well.
Suspection was correct. I did pay no attention to the "+", but I read
the info node and saw the hint to "alternate access metho
At 04:27 PM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
>
>> At 10:20 AM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>> >On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
>> >
>> >> > So, except for the pdksh postinstall (which is a genuine bug),
>> >> > everything else seems to be related to the weird per
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
> At 10:20 AM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
> >On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
> >
> >> > So, except for the pdksh postinstall (which is a genuine bug),
> >> > everything else seems to be related to the weird permissions on your
> >> > machine.
> >>
> >
At 10:20 AM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
>
>> > So, except for the pdksh postinstall (which is a genuine bug),
>> > everything else seems to be related to the weird permissions on your
>> > machine.
>>
>> Could it be related to the strange fact that my numeri
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
> > So, except for the pdksh postinstall (which is a genuine bug),
> > everything else seems to be related to the weird permissions on your
> > machine.
>
> Could it be related to the strange fact that my numeric user id
> suddenly has changed from 400
> So, except for the pdksh postinstall (which is a genuine
> bug), everything
> else seems to be related to the weird permissions on your machine.
Could it be related to the strange fact that my numeric user id
suddenly has changed from 400 to 121833?
One more note regarding the recreation of /e
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
> > I think your main problem wasn't with permissions, but with
> > postinstall scripts not running properly. See if running them fixes
> > the problem.
>
> I re-ran them. Incidentally, all those sh files had permission 000;
> interestingly, I was sti
> I think your main problem wasn't with permissions, but with
> postinstall
> scripts not running properly. See if running them fixes the problem.
I re-ran them. Incidentally, all those sh files had permission 000;
interestingly, I was still able to execute them. I had expected to
get error mess
> Well, you *do* need an entry for your domain user. That's
> accomplished
> with "mkpasswd -d -u YOURUSERNAME" (which will only query the PDC for
> YOURUSERNAME, not list all users). I'm no security expert,
> but I think
> there's enough local information that "mkpasswd -l -c" ("-c"
> stands
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
> > > I did the variation with "-l -c" to recreate /etc/passwd, because
> > > "-d" would hang the shell.
> >
> > It doesn't hang, just takes very very long in large domains. What you
> > want is "mkpasswd -d -u YOURUSERNAME >> /etc/passwd". Though I
> > I did the variation with "-l -c" to recreate /etc/passwd,
> because "-d"
> > would hang the shell.
>
> It doesn't hang, just takes very very long in large domains. What you
> want is "mkpasswd -d -u YOURUSERNAME >> /etc/passwd". Though
> I believe
> "mkpasswd -c" already does that without
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
> > The -u flag to mkpasswd (and -g flag to mkgroup) are your
> > friends. See
> > the User's Guide.
> >
> > The thing is that if you're the only user in your domain using the
> > machine, you can simply run "mkpasswd -l -c > /etc/passwd"
> > (or "mkp
> The -u flag to mkpasswd (and -g flag to mkgroup) are your
> friends. See
> the User's Guide.
>
> The thing is that if you're the only user in your domain using the
> machine, you can simply run "mkpasswd -l -c > /etc/passwd"
> (or "mkpasswd
> -l -d -u YOURUSERNAME > /etc/passwd").
I did the
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> On 7/7/05, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > > > If you still haven't run setup since that fateful man installation
> > >
> > > no, I didn't
> >
> > Good. The file was actually very helpful. Perhaps we could offer general
> > advice in the User's G
On 7/7/05, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > > If you still haven't run setup since that fateful man installation
> >
> > no, I didn't
>
> Good. The file was actually very helpful. Perhaps we could offer general
> advice in the User's Guide section on setup to back up that file in case
> of any insta
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
> > > ~ $ getfacl /usr /usr/share /usr/share/misc
> > > # file: /usr
> > > # owner: Administrators
> > > # group: mkpasswd
> > ^^^
> > > user::rwx
> > > group::---
> > ^^
> > > group:SYSTEM:rwx
> > > mask:rwx
> > > other:---
>
> > ~ $ getfacl /usr /usr/share /usr/share/misc
> > # file: /usr
> > # owner: Administrators
> > # group: mkpasswd
> ^^^
> > user::rwx
> > group::---
> ^^
> > group:SYSTEM:rwx
> > mask:rwx
> > other:---
> > default:user:Administrators:rwx
> > default:group:SYSTEM:rwx
> > d
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
> > Please make sure your mailer respects the Reply-To: header -- I set it
> > for a reason. There's no need to Cc: me on the messages, as I read
> > the list.
>
> Thank you for pointing this out! It's done correct now.
Yes it is. Thank you for notic
Ron,
Please make sure your mailer respects the Reply-To: header -- I set it for
a reason. There's no need to Cc: me on the messages, as I read the list.
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
> >
> > > Now I checked /usr/share/misc and foun
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
>
> > After upgrading cygwin to the most recent version, I found that man
> > pages aren't displayed anymore; for example
> >
> > $ man man
> > Warning: cannot open configuration file /usr/share/misc/man.conf
>
> That's not good...
[snip]
> > Now
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, FischRon.external wrote:
> After upgrading cygwin to the most recent version, I found that man
> pages aren't displayed anymore; for example
>
> $ man man
> Warning: cannot open configuration file /usr/share/misc/man.conf
That's not good...
> Then I saw that my MANPATH lo
21 matches
Mail list logo
