On 02/08/16 23:57, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > Hi Chris > > The reason I do not simply set the umask to a fixed value is to use the same > principle as upstream. That is honor the umask set bu the user. There may be > reasons why group read and/or write should be set for example. > > I agree with upstream that the umask should be honored, but not as strictly > as > upstream do. This is why I just override the "world readable" part and let > the > rest be controlled by the user. > > In the working patch you can see that I also set back the umask (just a > little > further down in the file) as it was to just change this specific case of > logging. > > More clear now?
What do other programs do for similar files? My .bash_history is 0600 even though my umask is 0022. Having a umask that allows other users to read your files by default doesn't mean sensitive-information should be made available. So perhaps you should ignore if the umask allows the group to read files? Cheers, Emilio
