Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:37:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcus Reid <marcus@blazingdot.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, mato <gamato@users.sf.net> Subject: Re: ports system and umask Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0709052336420.1016@ync.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <20070905031155.GA14348@blazingdot.com> References: <20070830004020.GA58539@blazingdot.com> <fbbqfi$va7$1@sea.gmane.org> <46DA98A3.5030204@FreeBSD.org> <46DAE9AF.8020706@users.sf.net> <20070905031155.GA14348@blazingdot.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Marcus Reid wrote:
> 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.
Seconded.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.0.9999.0709052336420.1016>