From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep  5 03:38:37 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739DB16A41A
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed,  5 Sep 2007 03:38:37 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from marcus@blazingdot.com)
Received: from marklar.blazingdot.com (marklar.blazingdot.com [207.154.84.83])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E14A13C469
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed,  5 Sep 2007 03:38:37 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from marcus@blazingdot.com)
Received: (qmail 21891 invoked by uid 503); 5 Sep 2007 03:11:55 -0000
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:11:55 -0700
From: Marcus Reid <marcus@blazingdot.com>
To: mato <gamato@users.sf.net>
Message-ID: <20070905031155.GA14348@blazingdot.com>
References: <20070830004020.GA58539@blazingdot.com>
	<fbbqfi$va7$1@sea.gmane.org> <46DA98A3.5030204@FreeBSD.org>
	<46DAE9AF.8020706@users.sf.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46DAE9AF.8020706@users.sf.net>
X-Coffee-Level: nearly-fatal
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports system and umask
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:38:37 -0000

On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 06:49:51PM +0200, mato wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >martinko wrote:
> >>
> >>We have similar problems here -- default umask is set to 027 and 
> >>therefore one needs to always remember changing it to 022 prior 
> >>installing any ports or packages.
> >>Been bitten many times because of this. :-\
> >>
> >>Martin
> >
> >There is an argument that if you set the umask then you are getting 
> >exactly what you ask for :)
> >
> >Kris
> 
> Yes, you're right, and it works for us and I can imagine many situations 
> people change default umask.  But IMHO it doesn't make sense for 
> ports/packages as installing them with non-default umask effectively 
> renders them unusable.  Therefore it seems to me that either ignoring 
> umask or at least warning people umask is changed would be correct in 
> this case.
> 
> Martin

I think a warning would be a good compromise between second-guessing
the user and silently breaking things.

Marcus