reopen 315089 thanks On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Marvin Renich <m...@renich.org> wrote: > * Aaron Toponce <aaron.topo...@gmail.com> [100517 13:05]: >> On 05/17/2010 10:49 AM, Harald Braumann wrote: >> > from pam_umask's description of the usergroups option: >> > >> > If the user is not root, and the user ID is equal to the group ID, *and* >> > the username is the same as primary group name, the umask group bits >> > are set to be the same as owner bits (examples: 022 -> 002, 077 -> >> > 007). >> > >> > So if there is a mismatch of *either*, name or ID, then pam_umasks >> > detects a non-UPG system, while it might very well be all UPG. >> >> A bug in pam_umask.so that needs to be addressed (which I believe we've >> already started addressing in this thread). > > Bug #581984.
Closed by maintener and reopened, if we use libpam for umask it could be even raised to RC critical, so please correct this behavior, report upstream. I agree that it could be misleading for other distro in this case, please add a newoption like useupg. Thanks Bastien -- 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/aanlktimvzj9octrxzidjc8kdzk6guhvedk5ssnrmo...@mail.gmail.com
