Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:27:28 +0200 From: Daniel Bond <db@danielbond.org> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Portsnap - set a good umask, for ports consistancy Message-ID: <45B77D27-08F0-4C17-ABA8-5420A7D55CBB@danielbond.org> In-Reply-To: <913F5042-AE21-4B80-9273-35132289959D@danielbond.org> References: <200908250828.n7P8SwIC056483@g5.nsn.no> <913F5042-AE21-4B80-9273-35132289959D@danielbond.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--Apple-Mail-69-154825341
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-68-154825311
--Apple-Mail-68-154825311
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry, seems the patch was not included. when I forwarded mail. I've
attached it to this mail.
Cheers!
--Apple-Mail-68-154825311
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=portsnap.umask.patch
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; x-unix-mode=0644;
name="portsnap.umask.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--- portsnap.orig 2009-08-25 10:20:38.000000000 +0200
+++ portsnap 2009-08-25 10:27:13.000000000 +0200
@@ -1036,6 +1036,10 @@
# Set LC_ALL in order to avoid problems with character ranges like [A-Z].
export LC_ALL=C
+# Set a standard umask, so directory permissions stays consistent, regardless
+# of which sudo-enabled user is calling portsnap, and his configured umask.
+umask 0022
+
get_params $@
for COMMAND in ${COMMANDS}; do
cmd_${COMMAND}
--Apple-Mail-68-154825311
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Aug 25, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Daniel Bond wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a case where some users have different umasks (0077 in some
> cases). When these users call portsnap (via sudo), it leaves the
> port-directories permissions in an inconsistent state, and people
> need to use sudo to list files.
> I'm not sure honoring "umask" is good from a users-perspective, even
> if umask is a standard UNIX mechanism of directory and file
> permissions.
>
> I suggest setting a reasonable umask, for the duration of the
> portsnap program. As far as I know, this should only effect /usr/
> ports, and if a user wishes to "hide" the contents of this folder, a
> manual chmod of it should not be overridden, until /usr/ports is
> completely removed and recreated.
>
> If this is a bad suggestion, would it be feasible to make it a
> config-option?
>
>
> BTW, I really like portsnap - it is a great program. Also I'd like
> to note that I am very happy with speed from european mirrors these
> days, which I've been grunting about earlier. Thanks for the effort
> you put into this! :)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Daniel Bond.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Daniel Bond <db@g5.nsn.no>
>> Date: August 25, 2009 10:28:58 AM GMT+02:00
>> To: db@danielbond.org
>> Subject: [PATCH] Portsnap - set a good umask, for ports consistancy
>>
>
--Apple-Mail-68-154825311--
--Apple-Mail-69-154825341
content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
name=PGP.sig
content-description: This is a digitally signed message part
content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkqTroMACgkQF4Ca8+3pySWiNQCglzVdMTIDTnM5WoU6jx9Lwlxj
OLYAn16NS3t3Qj1mnaMdAwzjAiUrVRYw
=EWbp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail-69-154825341--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45B77D27-08F0-4C17-ABA8-5420A7D55CBB>