Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010213121742.019bee18@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:21:36 -0500 To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com, Malcolm Boekhoff From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: chmod and ntsec In-Reply-To: <3A8955E0.1C8E6544@yahoo.com> References: <852569F1 DOT 005AA916 DOT 00 AT nyc-ntgw-n01 DOT ny DOT jpmorgan DOT com> <004901c095a5$cb7419e0$275c100a AT actfs DOT co DOT uk> <3A89409C DOT ED192DEA AT yahoo DOT com> <007101c095d1$80844730$275c100a AT actfs DOT co DOT uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:42 AM 2/13/2001, Earnie Boyd wrote: >Malcolm Boekhoff wrote: > > > > So is the definitive, expert answer to use "ntsec" or "ntsec ntea"? > > > >The ntsec flag overrides the ntea flag IIRC. There is no reason to use >the ntea flag if you use the ntsec flag. The ntea flag, IMO, should be >removed in the next release as it can cause more consequence than good. I guess the big question here is whether anyone finds the use of ntea useful for FAT partitions. This is the one advantage that ntea has over ntsec. If the answer here is that ntea is considered useful for FAT despite the ugly, quickly growing file it produces, then I'd say keep it. Just my $.02. Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 118 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple