Re: [PATCH] Portsnap - set a good umask, for ports consistancy

[Daniel Bond]

Sorry, seems the patch was not included. when I forwarded mail. I've attached it to this mail.

Cheers!

portsnap.umask.patch
Description: Binary data

On Aug 25, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Daniel Bond wrote:

Hi,












Best regards,


Daniel Bond.

Begin forwarded message:

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! :)

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