On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 21:13:32 -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> It's Users when possible. It has to be one of the groups of the user
> running setup. Administrators is the backup choice. It should be
> unusual.
>
Good.
> I don't understand why Brian had problems this time, and not in previous
>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 12:04:07AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Brian Ford wrote:
> > I strongly vote for Users.
>
> Actually, the currently proposed patch decides based on the group membership
> of the user running setup. But it might be better for this to be a choosable
> option.
It's Users when
Brian Ford wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>> Brian Ford wrote:
>>> Why are shells and such confused by this, though?
>>
>> Well, that scan PATH, looking for executables and if file they
>> see isn't executable, they ignore it.
>>
> Isn't that a bug if they don't use the ACL'
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Brian Ford wrote:
> > Why are shells and such confused by this, though?
>
> Well, that scan PATH, looking for executables and if file they see isn't
> executable, they ignore it.
>
Isn't that a bug if they don't use the ACL's for OS's that have 'em?
-
Brian Ford wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Yep. It's impossible to fully represent an ACL in traditional Unix
>> permissions.
>>
> That's fine.
>
>>> Trying to execute make in bash via PATH for other users results in
>>> make not found. But, trying to execute /usr/bin/make work
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Brian Ford wrote:
> > Here is an example:
> >
> > ls -l /bin/make.exe
> > -rwx--+ 1 ford None 156160 May 11 2002 make.exe
> >
> > getfacl -a /bin/make.exe
> > # file: make.exe
> > # owner: ford
> > # group: None
> > user::rwx
> > group::--
Brian Ford wrote:
> Here is an example:
>
> ls -l /bin/make.exe
> -rwx--+ 1 ford None 156160 May 11 2002 make.exe
>
> getfacl -a /bin/make.exe
> # file: make.exe
> # owner: ford
> # group: None
> user::rwx
> group::---
> group:SYSTEM:rwx
> group:Administrators:rwx
> group:Users:r-x
I recently updated from 1.3.19 to 1.3.20. Setup picked up a few new
packages like gcc, ncurses, etc. After the update, the new executables
and files had permission problems for other users of my (XP) box.
>From reading the mailing list, I thought this might be due to a directory
permission inher
8 matches
Mail list logo
