On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:24:34 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote:
>
>In my software I use bpx1opn and set the mode bits in a constant
>and it comes out just fine without worrying about umask.
>
Grrr... Read what you quoted:
>>
>> apply to BPXBATCH. Maybe I need to just call umask from the program --
>> that just seems odd and poorly thought out, though. And might irritate
>> the user who *wants* to control the umask; all I need is to understand
>> how to control it, then I can tell them "You're on yer own..."
>
The prevailing convention is for UNIX utilities to create
directories and executables with permissions 777; other
files 666, allowing the caller to reduce those permissions
with umask. zMan is well-intentioned in wanting to follow
those conventions. And if his code is script-like, calling
standard utilities to create files, the only control of
permissions of those files is umask.
How about a Marketing Requirement for:
//STEP EXEC PGM=whatever,UMASK=nnn
? No short-term help to zMan, of course.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
