On 08/24/2011 03:45 PM, Cathey, Jim wrote:
Aren't most uses of 0666 implicitly assuming some umask activity?
The point is that the 0666 is not to be assumed to be the final value. Also the point is that to use this proposed new code in our system we would have had to find it, and change it to something else in the source, rather than relying on umask. (Which is what umask is for.)
I'm more used to daemons that set a umask of 0 and then explicitly choose their permissions. I think that's a fairly standard daemon-ish thing to do. But anyway, I guess the status quo wins... -i _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
