strange output from ls -l ???
This is not a SuSE question .. more of a UNIX question. I have encountered a output from a ls -l command that i have ever seen before ... libros% ls -l qt* -rw-rw-rw-+ 1 dog wheel 75633 Aug 24 2004 qtvoke.exe Can anyone tell me what the 11th bit with the + is? This is a from a bash shell running on a Windoze system. The result is that I cannot delete the file with even a "rm -f". I have changed the premissions to 666 using chmod ......... no cigar. All comments welcome john
John, On Thursday 19 May 2005 07:54, John N. Alegre wrote:
This is not a SuSE question .. more of a UNIX question. I have encountered a output from a ls -l command that i have ever seen before ...
libros% ls -l qt* -rw-rw-rw-+ 1 dog wheel 75633 Aug 24 2004 qtvoke.exe
Can anyone tell me what the 11th bit with the + is?
This is a from a bash shell running on a Windoze system. The result is that I cannot delete the file with even a "rm -f". I have changed the premissions to 666 using chmod ......... no cigar.
Are you asking a Cygwin question here? If so, the answer is that there are permissions on that file that do not map within the scheme Cygwin uses to equate Unix-style permissions to Windows equivalents / counterparts. Use the "getfacl" command to see full Windows permission information.
All comments welcome
OK... From now on, you should ask Cygwin questions on the Cygwin list.
john
Randall Schulz
On Thursday 19 May 2005 17:04, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Are you asking a Cygwin question here?
If so, the answer is that there are permissions on that file that do not map within the scheme Cygwin uses to equate Unix-style permissions to Windows equivalents / counterparts.
Use the "getfacl" command to see full Windows permission information.
All comments welcome
OK...
From now on, you should ask Cygwin questions on the Cygwin list.
Please, this is hardly cygwin specific. If you use setfacl to set an access control list on a file or directory you will see that + too. It just means there are more permissions than the standard rwxrwxrwx model has room for. It applies to linux as well
On Thursday 19 May 2005 10:44, Anders Johansson wrote:
If so, the answer is that there are permissions on that file that do not map within the scheme Cygwin uses to equate Unix-style permissions to Windows equivalents / counterparts.
This is just stating the obvious. Try reading the question. It was not how to display the bit but how to change it.
Please, this is hardly cygwin specific. If you use setfacl to set an access control list on a file or directory you will see that + too. It just means there are more permissions than the standard rwxrwxrwx model has room for. It applies to linux as well
Going through the setfacl help I see not command the works. setfacl -s file returns illegal AOL entries error do you know any setfacl command that will take -rw-rw-rw-+ 1 dog wheel 75633 Aug 24 2004 qtvoke.exe to -rw-rw-rw- 1 dog wheel 75633 Aug 24 2004 qtvoke.exe And thank you for the real help john
Anders, On Thursday 19 May 2005 08:44, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday 19 May 2005 17:04, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Are you asking a Cygwin question here?
If so, the answer is that there are permissions on that file that do not map within the scheme Cygwin uses to equate Unix-style permissions to Windows equivalents / counterparts.
Use the "getfacl" command to see full Windows permission information.
All comments welcome
OK...
From now on, you should ask Cygwin questions on the Cygwin list.
Please, this is hardly cygwin specific. If you use setfacl to set an access control list on a file or directory you will see that + too. It just means there are more permissions than the standard rwxrwxrwx model has room for. It applies to linux as well
Go back and read his question. He's running on Windows. Why did he even think a SuSE list would have the answer to the question? In this case, there does happen to be considerable overlap, but in general there's a lot of stuff on Cygwin that is strictly a idiosyncratic to that environment. Should we be entertaining all such questions just because the Gnu tools happen to run on both SuSE and Cygwin? Randall Schulz
On Thursday 19 May 2005 19:00, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Go back and read his question. He's running on Windows. Why did he even think a SuSE list would have the answer to the question? In this case, there does happen to be considerable overlap, but in general there's a lot of stuff on Cygwin that is strictly a idiosyncratic to that environment. Should we be entertaining all such questions just because the Gnu tools happen to run on both SuSE and Cygwin?
Why not? I don't have a clue about how cygwin interacts with the windows permission system, but if someone else does, more power to them. So long as things don't get too out of hand, we've never had a list police here that I'm aware of. People ask all sorts of questions here and usually get a workable answer, that's one of the reasons I love this list
participants (3)
-
Anders Johansson -
John N. Alegre -
Randall R Schulz