Re: ACL: Why SYSTEM doesn't have full access set on newly created files?

[Kacper Michajlow <kasper93@gmail.com>]

 > It is easily fixable by mounting directories outside Cygwin tree with
"noacl" flag.
> It is even required to do so, if you expect interoperation between Cygwin
and
> native tools.

Indeed, this is acceptable workaround for me. Then again it is not really
interoperable out of the box, even tho it may looks like. I mean all
Windows drives are mounted, you can easily jump through all directories,
mess with them until you find that it doesn't work and it is " required" to
access those files differently. One may be fooled by the seemingly no
boundary between Cygwin and Windows.

> Don't do that on Cygwin directory tree, you break Cygwin doing this.

I was talking about project cloned outside Cygwin tree, by using Cygwin's
git. I do understand that Cygwin sysroot is it's own thing.
Also the Cygwin tree have let say "normal" permissions set. I mean there is
not deny on SYSTEM and so on.

> Answered multiple time in the last 20 years. Read the docs.

If it were so easy to find. And it was changed like 5 years ago how ACLs
are handled, so I really doubt it was described 20 years ago. I just wanted
to understand why SYSTEM described in Cygwin's docs as "A special account
which has all kinds of dangerous rights, sort of an uber-root account."
have those rights limited.

> They are in correct order. Just not canonical order, which Explorer only
supports.

I was not implying they are in incorrect order... The question was, could
Cygwin apart from having permissions in correct order, have them in
Explorer compatible order also?

> Yes.

Thank you for comprehensive answer.

-Kacper