Re: [Chicken-hackers] umask
From: Mario Domenech Goulart Subject: [Chicken-hackers] umask Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 13:22:27 -0400 > Hi > > I haven't found anything related to umask(2) in unit posix or in eggs. > > Do we have something? In case we don't, should it be added to unit > posix? Or to an egg? > Unit posix, I'd say. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] umask
Hi On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:54:43 +0100 Christian Kellermann wrote: > * Mario Domenech Goulart [101101 18:40]: > >> I haven't found anything related to umask(2) in unit posix or in eggs. >> >> Do we have something? In case we don't, should it be added to unit >> posix? Or to an egg? > > I haven't found anything either. I am for putting it in the posix > unit as that's clearly what it is. Also this should map nicely to > the umask(2) C function. So how about testing the > http://wiki.call-cc.org/cr-proposal procedure :) Sure. I can cook a CR, so we can try the process described by cr-proposal. Good idea, Christian. Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] umask
* Mario Domenech Goulart [101101 18:40]: > Hi > > I haven't found anything related to umask(2) in unit posix or in eggs. > > Do we have something? In case we don't, should it be added to unit > posix? Or to an egg? I haven't found anything either. I am for putting it in the posix unit as that's clearly what it is. Also this should map nicely to the umask(2) C function. So how about testing the http://wiki.call-cc.org/cr-proposal procedure :) Kind regards, Christian ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers