From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Feb 1 12:37:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA08243 for questions-outgoing; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from narcissus.ml.org (root@brosenga.Pitzer.edu [134.173.120.201]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA08237 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:37:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from ben@localhost) by narcissus.ml.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA02563; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:37:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:37:34 -0800 (PST) From: Stranger Bone To: Barry Masterson cc: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: 2.1.6 ports warning: umask 0002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Barry Masterson wrote: > As root, I'm compiling and installing parts of the ports collection > from the 2.1.6-R CD. During 'make install' I get the following > umask warning: > > ===> Warning: your umask is "0002". > If this is not desired, set it to an appropriate value > and install this port again by ``make reinstall''. > > This makes me think that 0002 might not be the best choice. Is > there a better choice for umask? Or can I ignore this message? > I will be running the port programs as a normal user. In general, I like to set my root umask to 077 or thereabouts, and I'll manually change anything that needs to be more accessible. That way, by default nothing I create is readable or writable by anyone else, so one absent-minded moment won't be disastrous. It's just a personal preference, but you should be conscious of whatever umask you have set. > Thanks. > > > Barry Masterson > jbarrm@panix.com > > >--->--->--->--->---> > FreeBSD 2.1.6-R > <---<---<---<---<---< > > Ben The views expressed above are not those of the Worker's Compensation Board of Queensland, Australia.