From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Aug  1 04:46:22 1996
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id EAA11287
          for ports-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 04:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA11282
          for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 04:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id EAA07918; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 04:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>
cc: "David E. O'Brien" <obrien@Nuxi.cs.ucdavis.edu>,
        FreeBSD ports list <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: ports/print/ghostscript4 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Aug 1996 14:46:34 +0300."
             <Pine.BSF.3.91.960801144006.15927C-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> 
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 04:45:44 -0700
Message-ID: <7916.838899944@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > 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

> How about the third way? Make a variable called PORTS_SET_UMASK or 
> something. It will allow those who always (or just sometimes) forget to 
> change their umask so that the port will be usable for "mere mortals"? 

If you read the original poster's message again, you'll note that he
was complaining about packages being installed with a fascist umask,
and whether or not pkg_add should set the umask.  The ports hack won't
help this case.

						Jordan