Re: [Sheflug] Weird permissions problems

["Chris J" <xxxxx [at] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And Lo! The Great Prophet " Craig Andrews" uttered these words of wisdom...
>
> Dang it. Thanks to the RedHat 'standard' of having each user with a group
>  with the same name as the user (why??)

No good reason. On the occasions I've had a redhat box to administer, I blow
user-private groups away. One argument against them is that for a user to
make the file readable by other people, they have to make it world readable.
The counter to that is that on an interactive box, all users are in the same
group (short of system accounts) so world readable is synonymous with group
readable anyway. Btw, I don't aggree with this counter argument :)
But it doesn't make sense and is completely counter-intuitive in my experience.

> I have a directory which is owned by root:devel. I need to allow anyone
> in  devel to be able to read and write to it, and for all new files to be
> created  with permissions set to 664 (directories 775, of course).
>
> This needs to be regardless of umask, seeing as some folk have 022 and
> some  have 002.

Not really possible, unless you want to rewrite touch(1) to modify ext2fs
directly ... :) . The creat(2) system call will use the processes umask to
set the file mode... from the man page: perms = (mode & ~umask). fopen(3)
also takes heed of umask, as does open(2).
> Any ideas ?

The only way I can see that you could do it is to blow away the user-private
groups so then umasks will make more sense, and then you can start bringing
in some consistancy in umasks.
Chris...

-- 
\ Chris Johnson                 \
 \ cej [at] nightwolf.org.uk          \
  \ http://cej.nightwolf.org.uk/  ~-----------------------------------+
   \ Redclaw chat - http://redclaw.org.uk - telnet redclaw.org.uk 2000 \____



___________________________________________________________________

Sheffield Linux User's Group -
http://www.sheflug.co.uk/mailfaq.html

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.