Re: UPG and the default umask
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> I guess I'm more or less curious why we're still using this outdated
> umask value with UPG. What would it take for Debian to update our
> default umask to match the UPG scheme? Is this doable for Sqeeze? Are
> there reasons for not making the switch?
The main problem with a default 002 umask, IMHO, is that as soon as you
copy your files from a host with 002 and usergroups to one without, or
untar a tarball created on a 002 host with usergroups on a system where
you don't have a usergroup, Bad Things can happen, depending on the
exact method you use to copy things.
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
| `- http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: