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
1 On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:10:07 +0200
2 Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On 20-10-2011 13:05:22 +0200, Burcin Erocal wrote:
5 > > > Ok, ED doesn't make a difference here. Can you explain why the
6 > > > host system is making world-writable files? What's its rationale
7 > > > to force that on you? Can't you really not just sanitise that
8 > > > (your umask?)
9 > >
10 > > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:12:53 +0200
11 > > From: Alexander Dreyer <alexander.dreyer@×××××××××××××××.de>
12 > > To: Burcin Erocal <burcin@××××××.org>
13 > > Cc: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
14 > > Subject: Re: Fw: [gentoo-alt] permission test
15 > >
16 > > You can change these permissions afterwards, but newly generated
17 > > files are world-writable in the first (this is enforced by the file
18 > > server). Of course only formally, because the access is restricted
19 > > by the toplevel ACLs.
20 > >
21 > > It would already help me a lot, if the warning would not sleep for a
22 > > second.
23 >
24 > Ok, so would the tradeoff to give a warning and sleep only once (the
25 > sleep perhaps is even misplaced here), instead of for every file be
26 > acceptable?
27
28 Yes, sleeping once per package should be OK.
29
30 Thanks.
31
32 Burcin

Replies

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