[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: UPG and the default umask

On 5/13/2010 3:34 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2010-05-13, Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> wrote:
>> If no stronger objections against a change from 022 to 002 is raised, would you
>> agree changing base-files so that /etc/profile uses 002 on new systems?
> Doesn't that lead to "great fun" if you activate NIS or similar means
> to sync unix users and groups on such systems, if they aren't set up to
> use UPG too?  So that would need a big fat warning in the release notes
> and somehow I fear bad PR.  :P

Can you provide a documented use case for NIS or NIS+? Speculation is
one thing, implementing it is another.

I'm utilizing OpenLDAP with autofs to mount user home directories on
RHEL 5 systems when users login. Everything plays nice, just as you
would expect, permission-wise. They have their own UPG, and the default
umask is still 0002. Because most of these are developers developing in
/u01, it's trivial to setup the collaboration as previously mentioned.

I don't have experience with NIS or NIS+, however, so I would be
interested in learning any problems with either of these setups.

. O .   O . O   . . O   O . .   . O .
. . O   . O O   O . O   . O O   . . O
O O O   . O .   . O O   O O .   O O O

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: