>
> > > I didn't think about dired; but I think we shouldn't "repair umask".
> > > If lynx gets invoked with a certain umask, in general the assumption
> > > should be that that's what is desired.
> >
> On Mon, 8 May 100, T.E.Dickey wrote:
> > I had in mind ensuring that if read permission is not masked, execute
> > shouldn't be either
>
> Why?
>
> > (a simple mask/shift/mask operation). With Unix
> > permissions set up as they are, that's an got to be an error.
>
> Again, why? Are you thinking about directories, or regular files,
> or both?
umask applies to both
> It seems reasonable that something like mhshow wants to mask out the
> 'x' but (of course) not 'r', as a precaution against creating
> executable files by accident. Well, they probably didn't think about
> directories at all; but any helper invoked from mhshow that is complex
> enough to create directories (and needs search permission in them)
> should make sure the directories are created with the necessary
> permission. For other operations, certainly where it doesn't
actually it's an unusual condition (I don't recall many other applications
that have to circumvent broken umask's).
> interfere with basic functionality of the helper (here: lynx), the
> helper should honor the umask of the caller.
>
> Klaus
>
>
>
> ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://dickey.his.com
ftp://dickey.his.com
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
