Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?

To: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, paul.is.wise@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?
From: gwmfms6@openmailbox.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:59:29 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] ae6ddaef7697917af976bed549c8172e@openmailbox.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] CAKTje6EB5Nw4dEN8j7gJRJG1uKgFgTP6SFe6b4-532ARnC3bAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[🔎] 1861c59558861ef871b4baa493053b61@openmailbox.org> <[🔎] CAKTje6EB5Nw4dEN8j7gJRJG1uKgFgTP6SFe6b4-532ARnC3bAg@mail.gmail.com>

You didn't notice because you run umask from your shell configuration?In other words, you have a working umask in Stretch?

I want a working umask in stretch. Can you tell me how to "run `umask027` from my shell configuration"? Currently, I have not found a way toget gnome to respect umask setting in Stretch.



On 2017-06-28 00:14, Paul Wise wrote:

I had "UMASK 027" in /etc/login.defs and I didn't notice that this no
longer works because I also run `umask 027` from my shell
configuration. If you can track down why this no longer works, please
file a bug about it and convince the maintainer to fix it in stretch.

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?
  - From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

References:
- Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?
  - From: gwmfms6@openmailbox.org
- Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?
  - From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?
Next by Date: Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?
Previous by thread: Re: UMASK 002 or 022?
Next by thread: Re: Subject: UMASK 002 or 022?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread