From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 6 06:37:17 2007 Return-Path: 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 1FB9616A418 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 06:37:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AFB4913C474 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 06:37:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 13812 invoked by uid 399); 6 Sep 2007 06:37:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 6 Sep 2007 06:37:03 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:37:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Marcus Reid In-Reply-To: <20070905031155.GA14348@blazingdot.com> Message-ID: References: <20070830004020.GA58539@blazingdot.com> <46DA98A3.5030204@FreeBSD.org> <46DAE9AF.8020706@users.sf.net> <20070905031155.GA14348@blazingdot.com> X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! X-OpenPGP-Key-ID: 0xD5B2F0FB Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Kris Kennaway , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, mato 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:37:17 -0000 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