Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:49:02 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Delaying 1.3.21 [was Re: Winsock closesocket() problem] (FAQ alert)
Message-ID: <20030306204902.GA11566@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20030306144658 DOT GB2008 AT tishler DOT net> <3E6762CA DOT 8EF5B6A8 AT ieee DOT org> <20030306154047 DOT GC2008 AT tishler DOT net> <3E67917D DOT 58537141 AT ieee DOT org> <20030306200457 DOT GA10932 AT redhat DOT com> <3E67B40D DOT E316CD3B AT ieee DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3E67B40D.E316CD3B@ieee.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:48:13PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:20:45PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> >Jason's problem is specific to a very peculiar setup and the only
>> >visible effects seem to be extra log entries.
>> >
>> >I would not delay 1.3.21 just waiting for this to be resolved.
>> 
>> Ok.  Thanks for the clarification.  Much appreciated.
>
>YAW.
>
>Here is another clarification
>>> cd /
>>> chmod -R a+r .
>>> chmod -R a+x bin sbin usr/sbin usr/local/bin lib/gcc-lib
>>> 
>
>>This is supposed to be fixed in 1.3.21, so we can hold off on the FAQ.
>
>1.3.21 will fix some of those but in lots of cases stat will still show
>that files installed by setup are not accessible.

Oh, right.

>Fixing the bulk of those awaits the soon/future/eventual setup.exe with
>ntsec patch.
>Even then I fear there will be remaining cases (wait and see).
>So a FAQ entry would not hurt.

Ok.  David, are you listening?  The very least the above should do no
harm -- other than to make some header files executable.  I guess it
really should be:

chmod -R a+x bin sbin usr/sbin usr/local/bin lib/gcc-lib/*.exe

cgf

>I was also thinking that cygcheck could "getfacl /bin".