Am Freitag, 12. August 2005 17:33 schrieb ext
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
i've found that i could not access the mounted
directory with non-root users.
1. i chown directories under /mnt to the user,
but so long as i mount, the permission of the
specific dir will be changed to drwx-- and
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:47:22PM +, Stefan K?gl wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i've found that i could not access the mounted
directory with non-root users.
1. i chown directories under /mnt to the user,
but so long as i mount, the permission of the
specific dir will be
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:59:25 -0500, Michael Swanson wrote:
Is this technique of umask=0 safe to use on an NTFS volume? I want to
mount an NTFS drive on my desktop so that a regular user can access it.
Is there a similar way to mount it with only read permissions,
seeing as writing to
i've found that i could not access the mounted
directory with non-root users.
1. i chown directories under /mnt to the user,
but so long as i mount, the permission of the
specific dir will be changed to drwx-- and
owner changed to root automatically.
2. i try to use a mount option
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i've found that i could not access the mounted
directory with non-root users.
1. i chown directories under /mnt to the user,
but so long as i mount, the permission of the
specific dir will be changed to drwx-- and
owner changed to root automatically.
2. i
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:07:32 +0100, Uwe Thiem wrote:
If not (like FAT) you need something like mount -o
uid=youruser,gid=users,umask=0777
Don't you mean umask=0? umask inverts the bits, so 777 gives - to
all files.
--
Neil Bothwick
How do Do not walk on the grass signs get there?
Neil Bothwick schreef:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:07:32 +0100, Uwe Thiem wrote:
If not (like FAT) you need something like mount -o
uid=youruser,gid=users,umask=0777
Don't you mean umask=0? umask inverts the bits, so 777 gives - to
all files.
I'm currently in the middle of an
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:45:44 +0200 Holly Bostick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| If umask masks bits off of the 'default' permissions, then what is the
| point of umask=000? It seems that it would leave the permissions as
| the default, which appear to be 755 (is there a creation mask of 022
|
8 matches
Mail list logo