From: Brandin C. <cha...@ya...> - 2005-10-27 15:36:22
|
--- Ken Hayber <ke...@ha...> wrote: > On Oct 27, 2005, at 8:03 AM, Keith Warno wrote: > > > * <cha...@ya...> [27/10/2005 1048EDT]: > >> > >> The second line solves the problem, removing the need to have an > >> "ignore_exec" option. When I have time, I will download rox-2.3.0 and > >> create a patch to fix this "problem." In the meantime, I'm using 2.2.0 > >> and don't see an urgent need to upgrade. > > > > It'd be worthwhile to see first who else has this problem. There's > > obviously some set of circumstances and/or variables that create this > > issue and we have yet to determine what that set is. > > I've been using a RunAction to work around it, but that is less than > ideal due to the DnD limitation. > > I also think that we should agree on the correct behavior before > starting any fixes. I believe the correct behavior for me is for ROX to never ignore the executable bit. Ask yourself why there even /is/ an option to "ignore the executable bit." The reason is because many distributions ship with mount configurations that cause FAT and NTFS partitions to incorrectly report all files as executable. This is an operating system configuration problem, and ROX provided a workaround with the "display_ignore_exec" option. However, for ROX to make the workaround _mandatory_ is not correct. Really, the users of the distributions with broken mountlines should change their configuration as I demonstrated previously, by using the 'fmask=0111' option to strip off the executable bit from FAT and NTFS filesystems. __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com |