Re: umask in X different to bash
Hey
did you ever find out how to control UMASK for X?
: )
rich
On Friday 6 August 2004 08:36, Ioannou Ioannis wrote:
> On Thursday 05 August 2004 16:48, rich wrote:
> > ok, here's how:
> >
> > create the file ~/.gnomerc and put the desired command in there.
> >
> > On Wednesday 04 August 2004 10:11, rich wrote:
> > > So that's great, BUT I've noticed that saving OpenOffice.org documents
> > > uses the wrong umask! As X is a different shell to bash (pls. don't
> > > start a big debate on X being a shell - there's another thread on that
> > > already!) does it have different places to set umask?
>
> But this is just a hack if you are using gnome. Remember the previous
> thread ? It started for somebody using KDE. For example I'm using IceWm and
> even if I have put something similar to my startup files (which I'm 100%
> sure that are running during session startup), all the applications that I
> start from the menu (not only OpenOffice, but all of the menu applications)
> have umask 022, not 002 that I need. In the terminal things are ok, since
> I'm running xterm -ls, and it reads my .profile.
>
> I'm using Sarge, bash and ksh, and I need a global solution, since the
> problem exists on a server that >= 50 people are logged every day. I have
> the same problem with twm, kde and icewm (icewm or icewm-session). I'm
> usually running kdm but this problem exists with plain startx also. I even
> tried to change the umask into /etc/X11/Xsession.d with a file named
> 90umask, but as soon as 99xfree86-common_start execs your session, the
> umask turns to 022. Mind that I have changed the umask to 002 into:
>
> /etc/profile
> /etc/login.defs
> /etc/X11/icewm/startup (and I'm calling icewm-session in order to run this)
> /root/.profile (just in case....)
> /root/.bashrc (just in case....)
> ~/.profile
> ~/.bashrc
> ~/.icewm/startup
>
> A grep -r into /etc gave me nothing helpfull. Any other ideas where the
> default umask is enforced ? Maybe has something to do with PAM ?
>
> --
> Rgrds
> iik1
Reply to: