Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Burcin Erocal <burcin@××××××.org>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Cc: Alexander Dreyer <alexander.dreyer@×××××××××××××××.de>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] permission test
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:20:47
Message-Id: 20111020132056.3f257d9a@carl.erocal.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] permission test by Fabian Groffen
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:10:07 +0200
Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:

> On 20-10-2011 13:05:22 +0200, Burcin Erocal wrote: > > > Ok, ED doesn't make a difference here. Can you explain why the > > > host system is making world-writable files? What's its rationale > > > to force that on you? Can't you really not just sanitise that > > > (your umask?) > > > > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:12:53 +0200 > > From: Alexander Dreyer <alexander.dreyer@×××××××××××××××.de> > > To: Burcin Erocal <burcin@××××××.org> > > Cc: gentoo-alt@l.g.o > > Subject: Re: Fw: [gentoo-alt] permission test > > > > You can change these permissions afterwards, but newly generated > > files are world-writable in the first (this is enforced by the file > > server). Of course only formally, because the access is restricted > > by the toplevel ACLs. > > > > It would already help me a lot, if the warning would not sleep for a > > second. > > Ok, so would the tradeoff to give a warning and sleep only once (the > sleep perhaps is even misplaced here), instead of for every file be > acceptable?
Yes, sleeping once per package should be OK. Thanks. Burcin

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-alt] permission test Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>