This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: vi stealing SYSTEM-owned permissions and ownership
- From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:04:48 -0500
- Subject: Re: vi stealing SYSTEM-owned permissions and ownership
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5274F396 dot A133C4CE at boland dot nl> <D7F32E9AFFD647458EB73E4ECBC03F3E at NCC1701> <52757448 dot 81FE6C53 at boland dot nl> <1139549616 dot 20131103022620 at mtu-net dot ru> <527698EA dot 16C8F45C at boland dot nl> <EF57884064F9460EBA1AA99C06CE8A67 at NCC1701> <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40C672 at MLBXv04 dot nih dot gov>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On 11/4/2013 9:50 AM, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
Haha, yes. But if my students have to administer remote
production-machines, most of the time they have no other option. I want them
to succeed where others fail.
Reading this thread, it looks like it digressed far away from the original point
($subject) as to why "vi" did not keep the original owner of an edited file.
(also pointed out was that "nano" did)... A reasonable expectation, IMO.
I noted the same thing (to myself). When I looked at the information
provided, I was left with the distinct impression that the 'vi' in use
was not a Cygwin version. The fact that the file edited with it had no
POSIX permissions was a red flag for me. I was going to suggest checking
this but as the conversation had already drifted into other areas, it
seemed of small concern to the larger issues being discussed.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple