This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 20 August 2007 17:42, Aaron Gray wrote:
On Aug 20 16:20, Dave Korn wrote:
BTW, you didn't by any chance use winzip to unpack the tarball did you?
No.
Just checking. Windoze tools don't generally do the right thing for cygwin's emulation of posix perms.
Apart from that, the file permission settings are the same in Vista compared to older OSes. The exception is the UAC stuff which could result in some executables having less permissions than usual, if, for instance, Internet Explorer has been used to download the executable. We can hopefully rule this out here, so it's just some permission problem which has nothing to do with the base OS.
I want to throw an AYS in Corinna's general direction here... one of the
ongoing problems in 'doze security since waaaay back when is that the default
perms for user-created files, the equivalent of the default umask under posix,
have always been pretty wide open: AYS they haven't been tightened up for
Vista?
Works fine on XP. The only things that are diferent are the Cygwin instillation and Vista.
Heh, so that's a bit like saying "The only things that are different are everything, apart from the gcc source code".
Unmodified GCC 4.2.0 compiles okay, but when modified cracks appear, only on
Vista though, XP is okay. So must be something to do with permissions.
So, what tool did you use to 'modify' it?
-- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |