Re: UPG and the default umask
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: UPG and the default umask
- From: Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 21:58:04 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 4BF2FF5C.email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <eLrKG-7tTfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <eIDS3-3fHemail@example.com> <eL9NMfirstname.lastname@example.org> <eLaTv-7Wmemail@example.com> <eLpITfirstname.lastname@example.org> <eLrKG-7tTemail@example.com>
On 18/05/10 11:00, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Not to speak about, that UPG is anyway a questionable abuse of the
> user/group concept.
> Neither to speak about the fact, that in the 17 years debian exists
> now,... no majority missed that "feature" (apparently).
Debian has been using UPG for decades yet no one has complained about
it. Why didn't you raise a bug when UPG was first introduced?
People configuring Debian to run in a non-UPG environment can quite
easily also change the umask. As Debian uses UPG by default then the
default umask should be 0002. If you change one then you can change the
other at the same time.