On 05/15/2010 10:47 AM, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2010, Charles Plessy wrote: > >> Also, I have not seen on -devel that the idea of having a different >> umask for system and regular users has been implemented in >> base-files yet. I propose to not mention this until base-files is >> updated to support it. > > The file /etc/profile is only read for login shells, or shells that > pretend to be login shells. > > Do we really have to make /etc/profile more complex to deal with > system users who login to the system? > > Are there any? (other than root, who already has its Private Group). > > Is it ok at all that a system user does a login to the system? The root account is the only account that is a system user/group that is a private group. The rest should not have login shells, that I understand, so setting the umask system-wide shouldn't be a problem. However, we do have the "staff" group, which is a system group and the "users" group at GID 100. Both of these, I'm assuming come from historical UNIX? Should their umask be 0022? Or do they have a different purpose? Just making sure all of our bases are covered with this change. I think we all want as little surprises as possible. -- . 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