From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: jari Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10257: 23.3.1 Cygwin: network drives - file is write protected (false positive) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:05:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20111213180547.GD22678@picasso.cante.net> References: <87aa71mwng.fsf@picasso.cante.net> <4EE270AA.2080702@cornell.edu> <20111210095858.GA19881@cante.cante.net> <4EE742B0.1080703@cornell.edu> <20111213140042.GA22678@picasso.cante.net> <20111213162628.GB22678@picasso.cante.net> <83d3bs8irk.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1323799616 9343 80.91.229.12 (13 Dec 2011 18:06:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:06:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 10257@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 13 19:06:52 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RaWke-0006Up-F9 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:06:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46010 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RaWkd-00053R-Tx for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:06:51 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37052) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RaWkb-0004zR-HQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:06:50 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RaWkV-0008WK-8U for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:06:49 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:35962) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RaWkV-0008WB-5V for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:06:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RaWll-0001V0-Ur for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:08:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: jari Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:08:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10257 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10257-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10257.13237996385703 (code B ref 10257); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:08:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Dec 2011 18:07:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RaWl3-0001Tv-Cb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:07:17 -0500 Original-Received: from emh04.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.110]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RaWky-0001Tj-Pj for 10257@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:07:15 -0500 Original-Received: from saunalahti-vams (vs3-11.mail.saunalahti.fi [62.142.5.95]) by emh04-2.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D0F913B3B2; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:05:52 +0200 (EET) Original-Received: from emh02.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.108]) by vs3-11.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.95]) with SMTP (gateway) id A015D226071; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:05:52 +0200 Original-Received: from picasso.cante.net (a91-155-176-245.elisa-laajakaista.fi [91.155.176.245]) by emh02.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5519B2BD48; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:05:48 +0200 (EET) Original-Received: from jaalto by picasso.cante.net with local (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RaWjb-0007Dg-VW; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:05:47 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83d3bs8irk.fsf@gnu.org> X-Gpg-Key-Id: 0xD189E680 X-Gpg-Key-Info: http://key-server.de:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xD189E680&op=vindex X-Gpg-Key-Get: ttp://key-server.de:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xD189E680&op=get User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jaalto@picasso.cante.net X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on picasso.cante.net); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Antivirus: VAMS X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:08:01 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:54926 Archived-At: On 2011-12-13 19:48, Eli Zaretskii wrote: | > Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:26:28 +0200 | > From: jari | > Cc: kbrown@cornell.edu, 10257@debbugs.gnu.org | > | > - The mapped drive can be written to without any extra 1:1 GUID,UID | > configuration. | > - Under Cygwin, should Emacs rely on unreliable[*] UID, GID? | > - Is there need for this extra prompt? The protective | > nature turned into nightmare. | > | > Much better would be to give control back to the user: | > | > (setq write-file-interactive-confirmation-flag nil) | > | > This doesn't affect Emacs's ability to signal an error on write | > failure. | | Emacs assumes Posix-compliant APIs wrt UID/GID/EUID. Platforms that | don't comply with the Posix semantics of these APIs should either | (a) become more compliant, or (b) modify the Emacs sources with | platform-specific code or #ifdef's to work around the lack of | compliance. (Emacs maintainers generally prefer the former | possibility, for obvious reasons.) All the other platforms do one | or the other; why should Cygwin be different? why should we change | long-standing Emacs code because one platform turns out to be non- | compliant, and the user refuses to work around the problem by | configuring his system in a slightly different way? The proposed chnage, by letting the use to control the prompting/checking behavior, would solve the issue. As far as I can tell, it wouldn't break anything. User already has a write access to the device. Emacs just doesn't know / guesses wrong / environment is complex / possibly uses wrong methodology (see Ken's notes about using uid, gid for write access check). So why not let user to help it to know via variable? Jari