Re: rsync problems from Vista installed cygwin, ok on XP

Corinna Vinschen-2 wrote:

On Aug 18 21:06, DaveB wrote:
> So... two interesting followon points...
>
> 1. Why didn't the ACLs get set to something reasonable as opposed to 000 in
> the first place when I created this little test area in Vista?  After all, I

The directory has been created using native Windows tools.  The permissions
given using native Windows tools *are* strange and don't follow POSIX rules.
It's perfectly valid that you can access a directory under Windows but get
000 POSIX permissions.  You did see the '+' at the end of the permission
in ls -l?

OK, I now see this + and had no idea what it meant... but have now found the doc in cygwin by typing "info ls", where it says...

     Following the file mode bits is a single character that specifies
     whether an alternate access method such as an access control list
     applies to the file.  When the character following the file mode
     bits is a space, there is no alternate access method.  When it is
     a printing character, then there is such a method.

     For a file with an extended access control list, a `+' character is
     listed.  Basic access control lists are equivalent to the
     permissions listed, and are not considered an alternate access
     method.

Interesting.  So if it knows there is an ACL which overrides the ------ permissions that were inherited from C:\ then why can't the cygwin port of rsync allow a Windows-friendly option for rsync'ing these files... even if it cannot directly read the ACL maybe it could allow you to invoke some special rsync permissions sync'ing flag?

I looked in the man rsync doc, and found some flags that might be helpful ... namely  -p -E and --chmod.  But even chmod=XXX doesn't quite let you do automatically what would make sense, which is to create rsync'd files with rwx for the exe's and rw for the others.

Not sure what the best way out of here is...??? I'm beginning to understand this a bit better, but it sure is a minefield... will generate ongoing problems for innocent future users.

PS Can anyone point to a good article on ACL that explains the relationship to these ls -l permissions also?