[PATCH] Portsnap - set a good umask, for ports consistancy
Daniel Bond
db at danielbond.org
Tue Aug 25 09:07:35 UTC 2009
Hi,
I have a case where some users have different umasks (0077 in some
cases). When these users call portsnap (via sudo), it leaves the port-
directories permissions in an inconsistent state, and people need to
use sudo to list files.
I'm not sure honoring "umask" is good from a users-perspective, even
if umask is a standard UNIX mechanism of directory and file permissions.
I suggest setting a reasonable umask, for the duration of the portsnap
program. As far as I know, this should only effect /usr/ports, and if
a user wishes to "hide" the contents of this folder, a manual chmod of
it should not be overridden, until /usr/ports is completely removed
and recreated.
If this is a bad suggestion, would it be feasible to make it a config-
option?
BTW, I really like portsnap - it is a great program. Also I'd like to
note that I am very happy with speed from european mirrors these days,
which I've been grunting about earlier. Thanks for the effort you put
into this! :)
Best regards,
Daniel Bond.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Daniel Bond <db at g5.nsn.no>
> Date: August 25, 2009 10:28:58 AM GMT+02:00
> To: db at danielbond.org
> Subject: [PATCH] Portsnap - set a good umask, for ports consistancy
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20090825/7bc9a307/PGP.pgp
More information about the freebsd-stable
mailing list