Hi! On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:09:07AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.17.0751 +0200]: > > This comes from a discussion in debian-devel. In that discussion, the > > existence of the pam_umask module was also mentioned. > > Even without pam_umask, the login.defs setting would only affect > console logins,
Why so? I see different behaviour (/dev/pts/3). Maybe you mean the difference between login and su? > unless bash was used, which overrides them. zsh, for > instance, does not specify a umask, so it gets 022 by default, and > login.defs' value on the console. With the existence of all these > corner cases, I would say: remove, and add a comment to refer people > to /etc/profile (or equivalent) and libpam-umask. I propose EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE -- remove all `umask blahblahblah` from every possible /etc/profile, /etc/bash.bashrc, /etc/csh.login, /etc/csh.cshrc, /etc/skel/.bashrc, /etc/skel/.bash_profile and whatever other shell rc in existence and put _there_ a comment explaining why centralized umask management is better from user point of view than something scattered across the system in different shell configs, and why umask is user-centric setting and not in any case shell-centric one. Then add to that comments links pointing to pam_umask and other stuff that can really help. Also, when shell does not set umask or user don't use a real shell as login shell (e.g. "ppp" user with /usr/sbin/pppd for shell) -- where will the umask be set from? Do you really think they could get it from _/etc/profile_ in that case? I think login/su _is_ the right place to start, especially because there's "#ifdef USE_PAM" which _could_ be a sort of magic chooser between either login.defs or pam (pam_umask). That's not current situation, though... IMHO, the only reason for having the umask scattered across shell rc files was then the lack of per-user configurability for it in login.defs (but: I heard about setting umask from GECOS...) So people just put their preferred umask in their personal .bash_profile or another shellrc, and setting umask in _global_ shellrc came just "by analogy", while there was definitely a better place for _global_ umask setting (in login.defs, of course) even in those times. P.S. login/su/pam-centric setting of umask is better because there may be several shells in system while semantics of umask is user-bound. I.e., what could be a reason for the same user to have different umask in different shells? If there really will be found a one, then the system can easily be declared non-standard and setting umask in .shellrc files can de considered reasonable. :^) -- WBR, xrgtn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
