Question: Desired owner/group when running setup-1.7.exe

[Julio Costa]

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 17:52, Karl M wrote:
> ...
>
>> So, here's the multiple choice question:
>>
>> How should setup.exe choose the file ownership for extracted files?
>>
>> [ ] I like it as it is. Just keep it.
>>
>> [ ] If the current user is an administrative user, make "Administrators"
>> the group of the files:
>>
>> owner: Current user.
>> group: Administrators.
>>
>> [X ] If the current user is an administrative user, make "Administrators"
>> the owner of the files:
>>
>> owner: Administrators.
>> group: The primary group of the account running setup.
>>
>> Comment: ____________________________________________________________
>>
>>
> I like number 3 the best. I generally use Administrators none and 755 for everything but individual users files and special files that specific
> permissions for sshd and such. I currently run a script that hammers the permissions and ownership after each run of setup.exe. I usually just turn
> execute permissions on for everything, but I wouldn't mind doing a better job on that.

My point also. I think running that kind of jobs is a no-option.

>
> What about having setup look at a special file and use the ACL as a template for what it does? Then, once a user has installed and configued,
> setup.exe won't bork it later. The only reason that I run a script after each setup is to fixup mounts and permissions.
>
> Perhaps setup could be given an initial template specification from the command line...that would not not add as much work to setup as GUI
> changes, and would all automated installs control over it.
>

I don't think it is needed that level of complexity. The proposed
defaults should be sane enough.

I'm also more inclined to the 3rd option, although I've not taken that
decision easily, because user foo would not see his/her files as foo's
but as Admins's (actually root). But seems to be the more "compatible"
solution. The least harm law...
And I would add another rule: If the installing user is not Admin, but
the primary group is 'Domain Users', change gid to 'Users', so that an
instalation don't be inaccessible for local users.

There is a fundamental usage philosophy difference between *nix and
Windows: On *nix there is really ONE admin, root. So the group
ownerships / permissions make sense implemented that way. If you don't
have access, just do su (or sudo)!
On Windows, It's very common to have multiple administrators (so it a
schizophrenic root!), specially if we are not talking about our home
computers :) So, if one admin leaves some files "assigned to him" but
not the the group, things will be broken!

Funny thing is, if implemented the 3rd option, all goes well, at
'display level', because then the root directory would show ownerships
as 'root:none'. That looks like more *nix, right? :)

Well, I hope I haven't said anything too stupid, because I confess I'm
Windows biased by force of day-to-day business.
But AFAICT, unless we had a full-working su (or sudo!) on Cygwin,
either you let setup.exe be more flexible /compatible in ownerships,
or risk to crop the usefulness of it.

___________
Julio Costa