harald@leo.UUCP ( Harald Milne) (10/28/88)
Well, not the protection bits, just the naughty bits.
I was playing with IconX and noticed everytime I edited the script
file, Z clobbered the s bit (script). Z might be trashing the rest too
although I have not checked yet. (Hope to hell not the archive bit!)
Anyway, Manx Z may not be the only program to do this.
--
Work: Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI), Advanced Development Group (ADG)
Irvine, CA (RISCy business!)
UUCP: uunet!ccicpg!leo!haralddillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (10/29/88)
: Well, not the protection bits, just the naughty bits. : : I was playing with IconX and noticed everytime I edited the script :file, Z clobbered the s bit (script). Z might be trashing the rest too :although I have not checked yet. (Hope to hell not the archive bit!) : : Anyway, Manx Z may not be the only program to do this. *ALL* programs will do this. Currently, very few programs modify the protection bits at all after they write out a file. -Matt
ba@m-net.UUCP (Bill Allen) (10/30/88)
: I was playing with IconX and noticed everytime I edited the script :file, Z clobbered the s bit (script). Z might be trashing the rest too :although I have not checked yet. (Hope to hell not the archive bit!) It appears that editing and re-saving any script file with any editor destroys all pure/script/arc/h bits. Everything gets reset to "----rwed". Makes debugging scripts very inconvienent. Why does this happen? -- --------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: ba@m-net.UUCP (Bill Allen Beogelein) Organization: M-NET, Ann Arbor, MI ---------------------------------------------------------
ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (10/31/88)
In article <8810281910.AA28109@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: >: I was playing with IconX and noticed everytime I edited the script >:file, Z clobbered the s bit (script). Z might be trashing the rest too >:although I have not checked yet. (Hope to hell not the archive bit!) >: >: Anyway, Manx Z may not be the only program to do this. > > *ALL* programs will do this. Currently, very few programs modify >the protection bits at all after they write out a file. Uedit (the new version, 2.4) restores the file's protection bits when it writes it out. -- +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ Eric Kennedy | Bush & | ejkst@cisunx.UUCP | Bentsen '88 !! | +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson) (10/31/88)
In article <2462@m2-net.UUCP> ba@m-net.UUCP (Bill Allen) writes: >It appears that editing and re-saving any script file with any editor >destroys all pure/script/arc/h bits. >Everything gets reset to "----rwed". >Makes debugging scripts very inconvienent. Why does this happen? >-- A related? problem; I now have two files in my s: dir (on jh0:) that TxEd will not write, no matter how I set the protection bits. I had a script with -s--r--- which I tried to edit, when I tried to save and exit, TxEd did not write the file (of course), but it _said_ it had, twice. the third time I realized my mistake, and set the bits to -s--rw--. Still it would not write the file. So I set to -s--rwed, no go. Also no go for ----rwed. MicroEmacs had no problem with the same file, although it did reset all the extra bits, as above. Also, I can create new files in s: and edit them with TxEd, but after I tinker with the protection, TxEd won't touch them. All this is making me nervous about using TxEd, does anyone know what is going on? >--------------------------------------------------------- >Reply-To: ba@m-net.UUCP (Bill Allen Beogelein) >Organization: M-NET, Ann Arbor, MI >--------------------------------------------------------- -- {ames|pyramid}oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson | Parallel IQ (the IQ of a group) OnTyme: NSC.P/Nelson POTS: (408)922-7508 | may be easily calculated given Disclaimer: Not officially representing | the IQ of each member - use the McDonnell Douglas Corporation policy. | formula for parallel resistance.
pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson) (10/31/88)
In article <235@antares.UUCP> pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson) writes: (carelessly) >above. Also, I can create new files in s: and edit them with TxEd, but after ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I must have been dreaming when I wrote that, now that I have tried some more editing, it seems that I cannot re-write any file on JH0: with TxEd. I can re-write on the floppies, regardless on the setting of the s protection bit, but not on JH0:. What is going on here????? -- {ames|pyramid}oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson | Parallel IQ (the IQ of a group) OnTyme: NSC.P/Nelson POTS: (408)922-7508 | may be easily calculated given Disclaimer: Not officially representing | the IQ of each member - use the McDonnell Douglas Corporation policy. | formula for parallel resistance.
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/31/88)
As I intended, Browser does retain all the file protection bits when you copy a file. After all, it just takes a SetProtect. I'm wondering though, should Browser clear the archive bit? -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: I accept full responsibility for my own typos.
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (11/01/88)
:As I intended, Browser does retain all the file protection bits when you copy :a file. After all, it just takes a SetProtect. I'm wondering though, should :Browser clear the archive bit? :-- : Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net : Have you hugged U your wolf today? Yah, I think it should... you know the old saying "Better to be safe then sorry"... Scenerio: Poor User copies A to B Poor User deletes A ooops. So much for that... -Matt
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/01/88)
In article <8810311843.AA05021@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) uses a confusing quoting technique, but he's quoting me: > :I'm wondering though, should Browser clear the archive bit? > Yah, I think it should... you know the old saying "Better to be safe > then sorry"... Scenerio: OK, what's the symbolic name for the bit in the 1.3 includes? (smiley goes here) -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: I accept full responsibility for my own typos.
mrr@amanpt1.zone1.com (Mark Rinfret) (11/02/88)
In article <2932@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > As I intended, Browser does retain all the file protection bits when you copy > a file. After all, it just takes a SetProtect. I'm wondering though, should > Browser clear the archive bit? To my way of thinking, ANY change to a file or it's attributes should result in a clearing of the archive bit. The archive bit indicates that you have an archived version of the file as it exists. If you change it in ANY way, the archived copy no longer reflects this. Mark -- < Mark R. Rinfret, mrr@amanpt1.ZONE1.COM | ...rayssd!galaxia!amanpt1!mrr > < HyperView Systems Corp. Home: 401-846-7639 > < 28 Jacome Way Work: 401-849-9390 x301 > < Middletown, RI 02840 Hypermedia R Us! >
mrr@amanpt1.zone1.com (Mark Rinfret) (11/02/88)
> In article <2932@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > To my way of thinking, ANY change to a file or it's attributes should result ITS !@$#%! Mortified -- < Mark R. Rinfret, mrr@amanpt1.ZONE1.COM | ...rayssd!galaxia!amanpt1!mrr > < HyperView Systems Corp. Home: 401-846-7639 > < 28 Jacome Way Work: 401-849-9390 x301 > < Middletown, RI 02840 Hypermedia R Us! >
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/05/88)
In article <532@amanpt1.zone1.com>, mrr@amanpt1.zone1.com (Mark Rinfret) writes: > > In article <2932@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > To my way of thinking, ANY change to a file or it's attributes should > ITS !@$#%! It's a typo. It's time to change my .signature, I see. Right now it's: > > Disclaimer: I accept full responsibility for my own typos. It's preferable, by the way, to carry on spelling flames in private mail. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn business.