Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <000a01c2d22a$42f50b10$78d96f83@pomello> From: "Max Bowsher" To: "Brian Ford" Cc: References: Subject: Re: multi-user file permission problems Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:04:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Brian Ford wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Max Bowsher wrote: >> Yep. It's impossible to fully represent an ACL in traditional Unix >> permissions. >> > That's fine. > >>> Trying to execute make in bash via PATH for other users results in >>> make not found. But, trying to execute /usr/bin/make works fine for >>> them. >>> >>> Can someone please help? Thanks. >> >> Options: >> - Disable ntsec >> - chown/chmod everything >> >> Future versions of setup will set the group to either Administrators >> or Users, which should allow more of the ACL to show in the mode >> bits. >> > I strongly vote for Users. Actually, the currently proposed patch decides based on the group membership of the user running setup. But it might be better for this to be a choosable option. > Please yell loudly when this future version appears. It should be in the next version. Whenever that is. Probably soon-ish, but only probably, and stress on the *ish*. > Why are shells and such confused by this, though? Well, that scan PATH, looking for executables.... and if file they see isn't executable, they ignore it. Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/