Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-04-07 Thread Jorge Almeida
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Håkon Alstadheim wrote: Jorge Almeida wrote: I would like the default permissions for directories created by a particular user to be 1775. Is there some way to achieve this? I think umask doesn't deal with the sticky bit. umask is a MASK. The application suggests

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-04-06 Thread Håkon Alstadheim
Jorge Almeida wrote: I would like the default permissions for directories created by a particular user to be 1775. Is there some way to achieve this? I think umask doesn't deal with the sticky bit. umask is a MASK. The application suggests permissions on new files, umask turns off the bits you

[gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-03-28 Thread Jorge Almeida
I would like the default permissions for directories created by a particular user to be 1775. Is there some way to achieve this? I think umask doesn't deal with the sticky bit. -- Jorge Almeida -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-03-28 Thread Alan McKinnon
On Wednesday 28 March 2007, Jorge Almeida wrote: I would like the default permissions for directories created by a particular user to be 1775. Is there some way to achieve this? I think umask doesn't deal with the sticky bit. I did a few simple tests here, I also find that umask doesn't like

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-03-28 Thread Jorge Almeida
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Wednesday 28 March 2007, Jorge Almeida wrote: I would like the default permissions for directories created by a particular user to be 1775. Is there some way to achieve this? I think umask doesn't deal with the sticky bit. I did a few simple tests

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-03-28 Thread Alan McKinnon
On Wednesday 28 March 2007, Jorge Almeida wrote: What's the reason you want to set the sticky bit for thaqt user? With some more info, maybe we can come up with an alternative Just to allow users of a certain group to write to common directories (not always the same, and which might be

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-03-28 Thread Jorge Almeida
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Wednesday 28 March 2007, Jorge Almeida wrote: Could you rig it so these users will only create new dirs in a certain place, like /tmp or /var/tmp? If so, would a cron job running every 10 minutes or so running this command be good enough? find

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-03-28 Thread Norberto Bensa
Jorge Almeida wrote: What's the reason you want to set the sticky bit for thaqt user? With some more info, maybe we can come up with an alternative Just to allow users of a certain group to write to common directories (not always the same, and which might be created by anyone of those

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-03-28 Thread Jorge Almeida
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Norberto Bensa wrote: Are your users running Windows? Is so, you can configure Samba to create directories with sticky bit set. No, linux-only. Regards, Norberto Thanks, Jorge -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-03-28 Thread Albert Hopkins
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 08:17 +0100, Jorge Almeida wrote: I would like the default permissions for directories created by a particular user to be 1775. Is there some way to achieve this? I think umask doesn't deal with the sticky bit. You should probably use ACLs. They may also obviate the

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-03-28 Thread Jorge Almeida
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Albert Hopkins wrote: You should probably use ACLs. They may also obviate the need to set directory sticky bits to begin with. I know, but learning ACL will not be a minor task (I think). You did not explain why you want to do this, but you also want to investigate

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] umask and sticky bit

2007-03-28 Thread Albert Hopkins
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 14:44 +0100, Jorge Almeida wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Albert Hopkins wrote: You should probably use ACLs. They may also obviate the need to set directory sticky bits to begin with. I know, but learning ACL will not be a minor task (I think). POSIX ACLs are