>I didn't see it yesterday, but it seems that is is always the write bit
>that does not get set properly. The umask values that work are only
>those that do /not/ allow writing to all files.
>
>Is it possible that the files have been marked "read-only" in Windows
>and that mount respects that sett
Hello
Daniel M. (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> [umask is not set properly for some files on FAT fs]
>
> Here is a list of umask's values and permissions those files are
> actually getting ('correct' means that they are getting the same
> permissions as all the other files):
>
> umask=: -r-xr
>VFAT doesn't support unix-style file permissions. What you're seeing
>is a unix-style system trying to do the best it can on a crappy
>filesystem. It won't get any better than what you've got.
I know all that, but *why* permissions on some files cannot be set properly -
that is my initial quest
Hello
Daniel M. (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> Another question: my shell process's file creation mask is '0022',
> which means that if 'umask' option is not used in 'mount' command
> when mounting vfat filesystem, the default permissions would be
> '-rwxr-xr-x'. But the actual permissions I get
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:43:09PM -0700, Daniel M. wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> According to the man page for 'mount', 'umask=value' is used as follows:
>
>
> "umask=value
> Set the umask (the bitmask of the permissions that are not
> present). The default is th
Hello everybody,
According to the man page for 'mount', 'umask=value' is used as follows:
"umask=value
Set the umask (the bitmask of the permissions that are not
present). The default is the umask of the current process. The
value is given in oc
6 matches
Mail list logo
