This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: vi stealing SYSTEM-owned permissions and ownership
- From: "Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]" <lavr at ncbi dot nlm dot nih dot gov>
- To: "wilson at ds dot net" <wilson at ds dot net>, "'D. Boland'" <daniel at boland dot nl>, "cygwin at cygwin dot com" <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:50:43 +0000
- Subject: RE: vi stealing SYSTEM-owned permissions and ownership
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5274F396 dot A133C4CE at boland dot nl> <D7F32E9AFFD647458EB73E4ECBC03F3E at NCC1701> <52757448 dot 81FE6C53 at boland dot nl> <1139549616 dot 20131103022620 at mtu-net dot ru> <527698EA dot 16C8F45C at boland dot nl> <EF57884064F9460EBA1AA99C06CE8A67 at NCC1701>
> > Haha, yes. But if my students have to administer remote
> production-machines, most of the time they have no other option. I want them
> to succeed where others fail.
Reading this thread, it looks like it digressed far away from the original point
($subject) as to why "vi" did not keep the original owner of an edited file.
(also pointed out was that "nano" did)... A reasonable expectation, IMO.
Anton Lavrentiev
Contractor NIH/NLM/NCBI
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple