Re: [Sheflug] Weird permissions problems

[Craig Andrews <xxxxx [at] xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 29 May 2002 16:24, you exclaimed:
> counter argument :) But it doesn't make sense and is completely
> counter-intuitive in my experience.

This is what I feel. I always though that a group meant just that :)

> 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).

This is what I figured. I just wondered if anyone knew any magic tricks (owt 
for't easiest :)

> 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.

I did the opposite, in fact. Seeing as most users already had UPGs, I just 
created the missing ones and assigned them to the relevant users. That way, 
everyone had a umask of 002, and all is fine and dandy.

Cheers,

Craig
___________________________________________________________________

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

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.