Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 08:51:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "David E. O'Brien" <obrien@Nuxi.cs.ucdavis.edu> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org (FreeBSD ports list) Subject: Re: ports/print/ghostscript4 Message-ID: <199608011551.IAA09914@relay.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <7118.838894645@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Aug 1, 96 03:17:25 am"
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. :-) Yep, best friend sometimes :-) But I didn't want to make a sweaping chmod. Some the of the files belonging to security related packages are supose to have fascist permissions. So I had to do a lot of it by hand. > > Could bsd.port.mk set a "umask 022"??? > > Sigh....................................... > with equally gratuitous use of capital letters look ma! no capital letters :-)) > I personally take the position that if you want a nice umask, you > should set a nice umask, I applied Satoshi's diffs to my local bsd.port.mk and that is a good reminder for me on port installs. Just patching my local copy of bsd.port.mk is ok with me (as long as changes I make are compatable with the stock one -- which this one is :-)) But, my dislike deals with the precompiled Packages. Could it pkg_add preserve file permissions? Or if that is not desired, an option added to do so? As a side note, I think the ports collection is one of FreeBSD's greatest assets. I agree that for the precompiled packages, ease of use (with no surprises) is a Good Thing. I've shown several Linux users FreeBSD. The precompiled packages that are so easy to install is the one thing that convinced a few of the to switch to FBSD. -- David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608011551.IAA09914>