It's not a question of whether the default directory permissions are
appropriate. I agree with those.
What we're talking about here is what happens during updates to an existing
directory. I can't see any rationale for changing the group permissions.
If the group permissions differ from the
On 03/06/2012 03:44 PM, Karl Fife wrote:
It's not a question of whether the default directory permissions are
appropriate. I agree with those.
What we're talking about here is what happens during updates to an existing
directory. I can't see any rationale for changing the group permissions.
Yep. That's what's happening. I'll file a bug.
Thanks
-K
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jason Parker jpar...@digium.com wrote:
On 03/06/2012 03:44 PM, Karl Fife wrote:
It's not a question of whether the default directory permissions are
appropriate. I agree with those.
What we're
On 06-03-12 23:03, Jason Parker wrote:
[snip]
It should only set them if the directory does not exist. If it's changing them,
something is very seriously broken.
An RPM which updates a previous version will change the user/group
permissions of any existing directory or file as it is
On 06-03-12 23:07, Karl Fife wrote:
Yep. That's what's happening. I'll file a bug.
AFAICT it's not a bug but the way RPM works.
Regards,
Patrick
--
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
On 03/06/2012 04:24 PM, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 06-03-12 23:07, Karl Fife wrote:
Yep. That's what's happening. I'll file a bug.
AFAICT it's not a bug but the way RPM works.
Regards,
Patrick
He didn't suggest that he was talking about RPMs. If that's the case, then I
take back
On 06-03-12 23:36, Jason Parker wrote:
On 03/06/2012 04:24 PM, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 06-03-12 23:07, Karl Fife wrote:
Yep. That's what's happening. I'll file a bug.
AFAICT it's not a bug but the way RPM works.
Regards,
Patrick
He didn't suggest that he was talking about RPMs. If
On 12-03-06 05:03 PM, Jason Parker wrote:
On 03/06/2012 03:44 PM, Karl Fife wrote:
It's not a question of whether the default directory permissions are
appropriate. I agree with those.
What we're talking about here is what happens during updates to an existing
directory. I can't see any
I notice that the installation of Asterisk 1.8.8 thru 1.8.10 (probably
earlier versions too) remove the group write permissions from
/etc/asterisk/. which is different than 1.4. And 1.6.
Is this expected behavior?
If so, what's the rationale?
If not, I'll submit a bug report if someone hasn't
On 03/05/2012 06:22 PM, Karl Fife wrote:
I notice that the installation of Asterisk 1.8.8 thru 1.8.10 (probably
earlier versions too) remove the group write permissions from
/etc/asterisk/. which is different than 1.4. And 1.6.
Is this expected behavior?
If so, what's the rationale?
If not,
On Tuesday 06 Mar 2012, Jason Parker wrote:
I don't know if I would call it a bug since the switch to install was
intentional, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily expected either. I
don't really have a strong opinion either way though. If anything, I
might be inclined to argue that 750 (or
11 matches
Mail list logo
