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 <d...@g5.nsn.no> Date: August 25, 2009 10:28:58 AM GMT+02:00 To: d...@danielbond.org Subject: [PATCH] Portsnap - set a good umask, for ports consistancy
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part