On 20 August 2007 17:42, Aaron Gray wrote: >> On Aug 20 16:20, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> BTW, you didn't by any chance use winzip to unpack the tarball did you? > > No. Just checking. Windoze tools don't generally do the right thing for cygwin's emulation of posix perms. >> Apart from that, the file permission settings are the same in Vista >> compared to older OSes. The exception is the UAC stuff which could >> result in some executables having less permissions than usual, if, for >> instance, Internet Explorer has been used to download the executable. >> We can hopefully rule this out here, so it's just some permission >> problem which has nothing to do with the base OS. I want to throw an AYS in Corinna's general direction here... one of the ongoing problems in 'doze security since waaaay back when is that the default perms for user-created files, the equivalent of the default umask under posix, have always been pretty wide open: AYS they haven't been tightened up for Vista? > Works fine on XP. The only things that are diferent are the Cygwin > instillation and Vista. Heh, so that's a bit like saying "The only things that are different are everything, apart from the gcc source code". > Unmodified GCC 4.2.0 compiles okay, but when modified cracks appear, only on > Vista though, XP is okay. So must be something to do with permissions. So, what tool did you use to 'modify' it? cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/