Try setting le option:
ENVAR("_EDC_UMASK_DFLT=007")
Kirk Wolf
Dovetailed Technologies
http://dovetail.com
On Nov 1, 2010 5:51 PM, "Paul Gilmartin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
