Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-27 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 27, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Michael Jennings wrote: On Wednesday, 11 July 2007, at 11:40:15 (+0200), Michael Schroeder wrote: Uh, not 002 please, 022 is the standard. Make it configurable if you really need to do something like that. Wouldn't this prevent the creation of group-writable

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-27 Thread Michael Jennings
On Friday, 27 July 2007, at 16:46:43 (-0400), Jeff Johnson wrote: But 0022 is the default setting, certainly choosing the uglix standard default is the least surprising choice that meets the largest number of expectations. On systems that use UPG, 0002 is the default. And last time I used

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-27 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 27, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Michael Jennings wrote: On Friday, 27 July 2007, at 16:46:43 (-0400), Jeff Johnson wrote: But 0022 is the default setting, certainly choosing the uglix standard default is the least surprising choice that meets the largest number of expectations. On systems

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-11 Thread Michael Schroeder
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:14:11PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote: This ancient bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83006 keeps resurfacing. It's trivial to add to main() mode_t mask = 002; Uh, not 002 please, 022 is the standard. Make it configurable if you really

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-11 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 11, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Michael Schroeder wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:14:11PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote: This ancient bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83006 keeps resurfacing. It's trivial to add to main() mode_t mask = 002; Uh, not 002 please,

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-11 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:14:11PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote: It's trivial to add to main() mode_t mask = 002; Uh, not 002 please, 022 is the standard. Make it configurable if you

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-11 Thread Russell Coker
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 09:07, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The sys-admin should be able to run rpm and have the packages   either correctly installed or the installation should abort.  There should be no other possible result. Even if the disk isn't spinning or is going click

Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-10 Thread Jeff Johnson
This ancient bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83006 keeps resurfacing. It's trivial to add to main() mode_t mask = 002; (void) umask(mask) and ignore the umask issue forevermore. The trickier problem is that once rpm starts to manage its own environment,

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-10 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: On Tuesday 10 of July 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Mark Hatle wrote: For something to software installs, I think it's reasonable to set the default umask instead of using the environment's. Yes, also my

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-10 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 10, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: On Tuesday 10 of July 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Mark Hatle wrote: For something to software installs, I think it's reasonable to set the default umask

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-10 Thread Russell Coker
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 05:26, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But +1 for the 2 line hack noted. Another +1. The sys-admin should be able to run rpm and have the packages either correctly installed or the installation should abort. There should be no other possible result. --

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-10 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Russell Coker wrote: On Wednesday 11 July 2007 05:26, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But +1 for the 2 line hack noted. Another +1. The sys-admin should be able to run rpm and have the packages either correctly installed or the installation should