Re: LS and TAR don't see any file permissions (

2011-03-16 Thread Peter Binney
Eric Blake redhat.com> writes: > > On 03/04/2011 11:12 AM, Peter Binney wrote: > > When running "ls -l" the permissions field shows as "--+". > > Which means that the owner has no permissions, but that there are ACLs > which allow others permissions. Not entirely unusual, given Windows

Re: LS and TAR don't see any file permissions (

2011-03-26 Thread Peter Binney
Have found my solution ... robocopy. Using it's /secfix option copied files are owned by the copying user. eg: robocopy x:\tmp .\tmp /e /secfix Note: you need a not-too-old version of Robocopy for the /secfix support (I was using v 1.96). On 16 March 2011 19:09, Peter Binney wrote: > Eric Blak

LS and TAR don't see any file permissions ("ls -l" shows "----------+ ...")

2011-03-04 Thread Peter Binney
When running "ls -l" the permissions field shows as "--+". Oddly, "ls -l" shows the correct permissions if the pathname uses the windows drive letter syntax. eg: $ pwd /cygdrive/c $ ls -l tmp/plb.txt --+ 1 ga2binn Domain Users 5527 Mar  3 13:54 tmp/plb.txt $ ls -l c:/tmp/plb.txt -r

Re: LS and TAR don't see any file permissions ("ls -l" shows "----------+ ...")

2011-03-04 Thread Eric Blake
On 03/04/2011 11:12 AM, Peter Binney wrote: > When running "ls -l" the permissions field shows as "--+". Which means that the owner has no permissions, but that there are ACLs which allow others permissions. Not entirely unusual, given Windows' ability to create files with a different own