Re: Problems with path resolution

["Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall at rfk dot com>]

At 05:13 PM 8/26/2001, nasser abbasi wrote:

>  
> > OK, what doesn't work about it?  
>  
>bash-2.05$ ls -l t.t
>-rw-r--r--    1 Administ None          368 Aug 21 08:33 t.t
>
>bash-2.05$ chmod +x t.t
>
>bash-2.05$ ls -lt t.t
>-rw-r--r--    1 Administ None          368 Aug 21 08:33 t.t
>
>I am sure there is a good reason for this and workaround (I had a quick look
>at the ntsec patch/entry in the faq).


Yes, the good reason is explained in the FAQ entry that both David 
Starks-Browning and I directed you to.  You'd probably find it useful to
read.  If there is something about the content that you feel needs 
addressing, please propose alternate/additional prose.
  

>I was simply saying it does not work as is, out of the box, as it works on Unix. What is
>not correct about this statment?


Nothing.  This qualified statement, while providing no additional help to
folks with the same question who search the email archives for answers, 
is correct.  Your initial one, which simply stated that chmod doesn't work,
was completely unqualified and totally erroneous.  I wanted to pick up on
this error to help avoid confusion for others who might stumble across 
your post.  I think I've achieved that goal.



Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
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/