Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 03:17:25 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: "David E. O'Brien" <obrien@Nuxi.cs.ucdavis.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org (FreeBSD ports list) Subject: Re: ports/print/ghostscript4 Message-ID: <7118.838894645@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 31 Jul 1996 18:49:59 PDT." <199608010150.SAA07622@relay.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> They should! Over the weekend I installed 2.1.5-R and 82 megs of > packages. With my fascist root umask, over half the ports were installed > such that mear mortals could not use them. Quite annoying. find is your friend. :-) > Could bsd.port.mk set a "umask 022"??? Sigh....................................... It seems like every time this comes up, one half of the room screams "It's NOT BROKEN, YOU CRETIN! IT'S *SUPPOSED* TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE UMASK! WHAT IF I DON'T *WANT* MERE MORTALS TO USE A PACKAGE I'M INSTALLING?!" and the other half then responds, with equally gratuitous use of capital letters, "YES IT *IS* BROKEN, YOU FASCIST BOFH ANAL-RETENTIVE TYPES! EASE OF USE! EASE OF USE! [chanting and stomping]." Things then usually degenerate from there. I personally take the position that if you want a nice umask, you should set a nice umask, and this position also conventiently saves me the work of actually changing anything. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7118.838894645>