also sprach Alexander Gattin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.18.0037 +0200]: > Why so? I see different behaviour (/dev/pts/3). > Maybe you mean the difference between login and su?
[ssh into the box; login shell /bin/bash]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ egrep -i '00(07|22)' /etc/profile ~/.bash_profile
/etc/login.defs
/etc/profile:umask 0007
/etc/login.defs:#UMASK 0007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ umask
0007
[...]
[new login, after changing /etc/profile and /etc/login.defs as shown]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ egrep -i '00(07|22)' /etc/profile ~/.bash_profile
/etc/login.defs
/etc/profile:#umask 0007
/etc/login.defs:UMASK 0007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ umask
0022
> I propose EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE -- remove all `umask
[...]
> Then add to that comments links pointing to pam_umask
> and other stuff that can really help.
That's not the opposite of what I had proposed.
> 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?
With libpam_umask: the right place
Anything else: undefined
> Do you really think they could get it from _/etc/profile_ in that case?
I think you should not work yourself up over it.
> configurability for it in login.defs (but: I heard about setting
> umask from GECOS...)
Have a pointer?
> 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.
You clearly have never worked with "users".
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' : proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
perl -e 'print "The earth is a disk!\n" if ( "a" == "b" );'
(dedicated to nori)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
