If you want to answer, please do it on the list. I'm not interested in a private discussion.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 04:23:24PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Harald Braumann <ha...@unheit.net> [100518 16:16]: > > There is already an upstream bug [0], but even if it get's > > implemented, that wouldn't magically change all systems out there > > running non-UPG > > We are not talking about system running non-UPG here. Were are talking > about newly installed systems, thus UPG systems. There seems to be a widespread misconception, that there is only ever one isolated machine that does local user management. I think it is quite common in a network, to have users in LDAP or some other central database. If I install a machine in such an environment, it has to take whatever LDAP provides. I'm not going to change the whole user management, just for a newly installed Debian machine. > > A umask of 022 is the right choice for most people and at least > > doesn't put the others at risk. > > Please do not troll. I can not but yield to your conclusive argumentation and will from now on be quiet on this matter. In any case, I think I have presented all my arguments. harry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100518193406.gc4...@sbs288.lan
