On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Todd Wade <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: Dave Howorth <[email protected]> > > Apps don't 'honour' umasks; the kernel applies them to whatever > > permissions apps ask for. > > $ umask > 0002 > $ touch foo > $ perl -MFile::Temp -le '$File::Temp::KEEP_ALL=1; File::Temp->new(DIR => > ".");' > $ ls -l > -rw-rw-r-- 1 me me 0 Sep 8 13:54 foo > -rw------- 1 me me 0 Sep 8 13:55 j3DftrlDiM > > touch honors the umask, File::Temp sets the mode of the file explicitly. > > Please, continue to use different words to say the same thing I am while > calling > me wrong and you right. I'm curious as to how long you'll go. > Dave is not saying the same thing you are. Your belief that he is further demonstrates your misunderstanding of umask. You claim that touch honored the umask and File::Temp did not. But note that your umask is 0002, not 0113. According to your explanation of umask, the file foo should have been created with permissions -rwxrwxr-x, not -rw-rw-r--. Ronald
_______________________________________________ templates mailing list [email protected] http://mail.template-toolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/templates
