Re: umask builtin

2017-11-09 Thread kalle
> I linked the POSIX standard document in my reply. Here it is > again: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/umask.html > > That is how the standard specifies the behavior of the umask builtin. > If your question > is "why is it shown in that w

Re: umask builtin

2017-11-09 Thread kalle
Am 08.11.2017 um 16:36 schrieb Eduardo Bustamante: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:06 AM, kalle wrote: > [...] >>> From umask(1p): >>> For a symbolic_mode value, the new value of the file mode creation mask >>> shall be the logical complement of the file permission bits portion of >>> the fil

Re: umask builtin

2017-11-08 Thread Eduardo Bustamante
ent behavior made clear in some other documentation than > 'man 1p umask'? I linked the POSIX standard document in my reply. Here it is again: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/umask.html That is how the standard specifies the behavior of the umask builtin. If yo

Re: umask builtin

2017-11-08 Thread Greg Wooledge
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:06:36PM +0100, kalle wrote: > Am 08.11.2017 um 14:55 schrieb DJ Mills: > > From umask(1p): > > For a symbolic_mode value, the new value of the file mode creation mask > > shall be the logical complement of the file permission bits portion of > > the file mode speci

Re: umask builtin

2017-11-08 Thread kalle
Am 08.11.2017 um 14:55 schrieb DJ Mills: > > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:04 AM, kalle > wrote: > > in my version 4.4.0(1), > `umask' gives me a numeric output of `0022', > while `umask -S' gives me an output of `u=rwx,g=rx,o=rx'. > Shouldn't um

Re: umask builtin

2017-11-08 Thread Eduardo A . Bustamante López
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 12:04:08PM +0100, kalle wrote: > in my version 4.4.0(1), > `umask' gives me a numeric output of `0022', > while `umask -S' gives me an output of `u=rwx,g=rx,o=rx'. > Shouldn't umask -S also formulate the mask in a negative way, as does > `umask'? Thus giving out `u=,g=w,o=w'

Re: umask builtin

2017-11-08 Thread DJ Mills
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:04 AM, kalle wrote: > in my version 4.4.0(1), > `umask' gives me a numeric output of `0022', > while `umask -S' gives me an output of `u=rwx,g=rx,o=rx'. > Shouldn't umask -S also formulate the mask in a negative way, as does > `umask'? Thus giving out `u=,g=w,o=w'? > > gr

umask builtin

2017-11-08 Thread kalle
in my version 4.4.0(1), `umask' gives me a numeric output of `0022', while `umask -S' gives me an output of `u=rwx,g=rx,o=rx'. Shouldn't umask -S also formulate the mask in a negative way, as does `umask'? Thus giving out `u=,g=w,o=w'? greetings, kalle