[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: umask is different in 8.0



Yeah.. I thought so too... .. file must have existed before?

Tommy

--On Thursday, December 19, 2002 04:47:46 PM -0700 Ben Dugdale <turtlendog rmusd net> wrote:

Perhaps a dumb question but...

In this example, shouldn't the permissions of 'foo' be rwxrwxrwx with a
umask of 000 unless foo was a pre-existing file?  Your permissions are
what I would expect with a umask of 111, but it works the same here (as
your example).


Jesse Keating wrote:


On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:02:30 -0500
"Eric Wood" <eric interplas com> wrote:



But when a new child process spawns (say a shell script), the umask is
not inherited.  Is there a fix for that?



I can't duplicate that either. [jkeating yoda temp]$ umask 000 [jkeating yoda temp]$ ./script 0000 Touching foo

total 20
drwxrwxr-x    3 jkeating jkeating     4096 Dec 19 12:11 .
drwx------   97 jkeating jkeating     8192 Dec 19 12:10 ..
-rw-rw-rw-    1 jkeating jkeating        0 Dec 19 12:11 foo


[jkeating yoda temp]$ cat script # !/bin/sh

echo `umask`
echo "Touching foo"
touch foo
echo
ls -al

exit 0






---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses]



--
Psyche-list mailing list
Psyche-list redhat com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list



-- Tommy McNeely -- Tommy McNeely Sun COM Sun Microsystems - IT Ops - Broomfield Campus Support Phone: x50888 / 303-464-4888 -- Fax: 720-566-3168





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]