Related to the forwarded mail below, the mandoc.db files are also affected by umask.
Would it make sense for pkg_add and pkg_delete to just force a sane umask before starting operations? ----- Forwarded message from Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> ----- From: Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:13:53 +0100 To: Alessandro DE LAURENZIS <just22....@gmail.com>, ports <ports@openbsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Subject: Re: pkg_add and umask [was misc@: Re: Cannot connect to CUPS web interface in -current] Mail-Followup-To: Alessandro DE LAURENZIS <just22....@gmail.com>, ports <ports@openbsd.org> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:54:34AM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > Moving to ports@ ... > > On 2015/03/10 11:32, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote: > > Hello Stuart, > > > > On Tue 10/03/2015 08:28, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > Is this while building the port, or just installing from packages? > > > > Installing from packages. Isn't that expected? > > Not sure. > > So: > > 1. Database files in /var/db/pkg are affected by umask ("pkg_add moo" with > umask > 077, then you can't "pkg_info moo" as a normal user) > > 2. Normal installed files from the package are not affected by umask > > 3. @sample'd files with an explicit @mode are not affected by umask > > 4. @sample'd files *without* an explicit mode (e.g. normal files installed in > /etc) are affected by umask > > ... > > 1 could be argued either way, but I think current behaviour is ok. > > 2 and 3 seem correct to me > > 4 is surprising to me. Marc, is that intentional? I kindof think 4 should be forbidden or default'd to something sane, indeed. ----- End forwarded message -----