On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 00:33 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, martin f krafft wrote:
If one is faced with the task to set the umask globally for all
users and shells, this turns out to be a job of redundancy: every
shell uses its own file in /etc, and you end up making
also sprach Alban Browaeys [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.20.1911 +0200]:
pam umask should be used ... though this was adde to debian without much
integration. The setting in /etc/login.defs should be move to the end of
this file (settings obsolete by pam) and all /etc/pam.d files upgraded.
Do
Quoting martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Do libpam-umask ought to be base ?
The discussion is here: http://bugs.debian.org/314539
And enforcing the use of libpam-umask is actually the direction we're
taking..
First step probably : comment UMASK in login.defs in answer to
#314539.
also sprach Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.17.0208 +0200]:
And unless they know about the completely non-standard /etc/umask.conf,
they'll still edit multiple files.
True enough... unless files like /etc/profile include some magic
code for umask (rather than the umask call itself),
Filing a bug against login...
(shadow maintainer hat on)
bugger...:-)
I was reading this thread and just told to self: dude, this will end
up in a BR against shadow/login:-)
So, to summarize, the rationale here is: don't set umask in the
default login.defs and leave this to shells and/or
also sprach Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.17.0658 +0200]:
So, to summarize, the rationale here is: don't set umask in the
default login.defs and leave this to shells and/or pam_umask.
Right?
Yes.
I have to keep some kind of explanation for the default login.defs
file, this is
If one is faced with the task to set the umask globally for all
users and shells, this turns out to be a job of redundancy: every
shell uses its own file in /etc, and you end up making changes to
5 files or more (depending on the number of installed shells).
What's worse: change the umask and
* martin f krafft [Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:05:08 +0200]:
1. gather comments.
apt-cache show libpam-umask
--
Adeodato Sim
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.
-- Oscar Wilde
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
also sprach Adeodato Sim [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.17.0011 +0200]:
1. gather comments.
apt-cache show libpam-umask
Very nice. I almost feel silly now.
Is there any point in following through with the /etc/umask.conf
proposal? libpam-umask is optional after all, and unless people know
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, martin f krafft wrote:
If one is faced with the task to set the umask globally for all
users and shells, this turns out to be a job of redundancy: every
shell uses its own file in /etc, and you end up making changes to
5 files or more (depending on the number of installed
also sprach Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.17.0033 +0200]:
There is already an umask setting in /etc/login.defs. If it makes people
happy, I will happily drop the umask setting from /etc/profile, so
that people do not have to decide between login.defs and profile
when trying to set
On Jun 17, Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is already an umask setting in /etc/login.defs. If it makes people
happy, I will happily drop the umask setting from /etc/profile, so
that people do not have to decide between login.defs and profile
when trying to set an umask globally.
On Jun 17, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.17.0033 +0200]:
There is already an umask setting in /etc/login.defs. If it makes people
happy, I will happily drop the umask setting from /etc/profile, so
that people do not have to
also sprach Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.17.0103 +0200]:
/etc/login.defs is only read for console logins, not for e.g. SSH
logins.
Then maybe the umask setting should be removed from there?
r agree. Since any login session these days will invoke a shell,
there is no point in
On 16-Jun-05, 17:23 (CDT), martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any point in following through with the /etc/umask.conf
proposal? libpam-umask is optional after all, and unless people know
about it, they'll edit multiple files wrt umask, and we *could*
unify this with relative
15 matches
Mail list logo
