This is the mail archive of the cygwin@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: Missing commands/incorrect behaviour after update


On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Randall R Schulz wrote:

> Michael,
>
> At 05:28 2002-11-12, Eriksson, Michael wrote:
> >Max,
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > Re install the relevant packages.
> > > http://cygwin.com/packages/ if you don't
> > > know which the relvant packages are.
> >
> >I have looked there already, but it is not obvious to me what packages
> >would be relevant. (Neither from the original listing nor from the 206
> >matches for a "cat"-search.)
>
> Perhaps the package search page would benefit from a hint about appending
> ".exe" when looking for command names that are (expected to be) binary
> executables? Of course, doing so would prevent seeing scripts and symlinks.

Try searching for "bin/cat".  Randall is right, though, this would be a
good thing to have as a hint on the search page...

> > > > 2) A newly created directory can only be entered after chmod 700
> > > > (or similar). This is (I believe) consistent with my umask of 122,
> > > > but a) inconsistent with previous behaviour, b) bloody stupid.
> > >
> > > Ok... You ask (set your umask) your computer to do something, and then
> > > expect it do to something else?
> > > Analogous situation:
> > > $ touch foo bar
> > > $ rm foo
> > > <computer deletes foo>
> > > "No, stupid computer, you should have realized I wanted to delete bar
> > > instead!"
> >
> >No need to get sarcastic. I have not worked extensively with a "real"
> >unix system for years, but I do not recall this problem. In particular:
> >To have reasonable default settings for directories I must include
> >1 in the chmod-code, but for files exclude it? Hm...
>
> I don't really see why you want a execute bit in your umask. Programs that
> create files typically either use 0666 or 0777 for the new file's mode and
> they do the latter only when they're creating executable files, so putting
> an execute bit in your umask is basically second-guessing the software. As
> you probably know, directories must bear an applicable execute bit if their
> contents are to be examined by the "kernel" for opens, creates or cd's, etc.

Correction.  The execute bit is needed to *access* the contents of the
directories.  The contents can be examined (i.e. the directory can be
read) with just the read bit on.  For example (on Linux):

$ /bin/mkdir lstest
$ echo aaa > lstest/aaa
$ /bin/chmod 644 lstest
drw-r--r--    2 igor     root         4096 Nov 12 11:52 lstest
$ /bin/ls lstest
aaa
$ /bin/ls -l lstest
/bin/ls: lstest/aaa: Permission denied
total 0
$ /bin/cat lstest/aaa
/bin/cat: lstest/aaa: Permission denied
$ /bin/chmod 311 lstest
$ ls -ld lstest
d-wx--x--x    2 igor     root         4096 Nov 12 11:52 lstest
$ /bin/ls lstest
/bin/ls: lstest: Permission denied
$ /bin/cat lstest/aaa
aaa
$

It's interesting to note that the "ls -l" above fails because it has to
stat the *files* in the directory, as well as read the directory contents.

This, of course, doesn't work the same way if you're root :-D  Or, as it
turns out, if you have admin privileges on your NT machine.

> > > As to why the behaviour has changed, ntsec is now on by
> > > default in recent Cygwin DLLs.
> >
> >Speculating that ntsec is means NT security, how do I/can I turn it off?
> >I do almost all security handling through Windows Explorer anyway,
> >since the incompatibilities have caused me to many problems.
>
> Ntsec is documented so speculation is really unnecessary. The switch to
> having it on by default was announced in the release notes for the Cygwin
> package update that included it and because of the change has come up in
> several messages on the Cygwin list since then.
>
> > > > 3) I have sporadic occurences of being automatically put in input mode
> > > > (instead of the correct normal mode) when going through the history
> > > > with the arrow keys or j/k. (Using, of course, vi command line
> > > > editing.)
> > >
> > > No idea - I don't use vi command line editing.
> >
> >Your loss entirely :-)
>
> There have been repeated reports of problems with Vi-mode line editing in
> BASH. In particular, I seem to recall that striking keys that send escape
> sequences are a problem. Apparently, the initial ESC from the sequences
> does not initiate a time-out before it is interpreted as an isolated
> command- or input-mode-terminating escape.

This should be fixed in the latest bash.

> Even though I'm a died-in-the-wool Vi user, I stick to Emacs mode in BASH.
> But then, I make only rudimentary use of BASH line editing and other
> readline features.

Same here, FWIW.

> >Michael
>
> Randall Schulz
> Mountain View, CA USA

	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Water molecules expand as they grow warmer" (C) Popular Science, Oct'02, p.51


--
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/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]