On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 19:10 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 18:02:28 +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > > > I would suggest that this bug should be closed, it certainly does not > > appear to be a "general" bug because only one package creates that > > directory and that package is creating it correctly AFAICT. > > > dpkg creates that directory, and dpkg ought to use the permissions from > the package, regardless of umask, IMO. I follow dpkg development only as a basis of working within Emdebian so I can't really comment on whether dpkg should ignore umask - it might be a good idea to reassign this bug to dpkg and see what the dpkg maintainers feel about this behaviour. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part