Re: umask - default user settings?

On 18/07/2024 00:01, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 17:58:57 +0100, Tim Woodall wrote: No, I'm talking about sudo, not su. I'm not a sudo user so I can't test but my understanding is that root inherits the umask of the invoking user (or it used to) Looks like this is still true.

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 19/07/2024 10:45, songbird wrote: - Does MATE use scopes and services to run applications an components? "ps xwf" and "systemd-cgls" trees may clarify where started applications appear. neither of those show all the programs that i have included on the panels, but there are cgroups and so

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 23:04:25 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > On 16/07/2024 20:46, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 23:39:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > Now we just need for GNOME users to discover a way to configure the > > > programs that are started as children of dbus, and

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 16/07/2024 20:46, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 23:39:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: Now we just need for GNOME users to discover a way to configure the programs that are started as children of dbus, and then we can move forward. Documentation would be my top priority. If oth

Re: umask - default user settings?

Max Nikulin wrote: > On 19/07/2024 04:11, songbird wrote: >>so far, agreed, i poked at it a bit the other day to see >> if MATE would work with the roughly (user-@1000,etc) systemd >> unit approach but that didn't accomplish anything i could tell. > > It would be great if those, who tried it, r

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 19/07/2024 04:11, songbird wrote: so far, agreed, i poked at it a bit the other day to see if MATE would work with the roughly (user-@1000,etc) systemd unit approach but that didn't accomplish anything i could tell. It would be great if those, who tried it, reported more precise what the

Re: umask - default user settings?

Greg Wooledge wrote: ... > It only becomes *hard* when Desktop Environments are introduced into the > picture. so far, agreed, i poked at it a bit the other day to see if MATE would work with the roughly (user-@1000,etc) systemd unit approach but that didn't accomplish anything i could tell.

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 09:07:48 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > Taking into account a number of bugs, perhaps it is not really bad that > recipes how to change umask are not easily available. Documentation should > be extensive enough to describe possible pitfalls. That's an odd stance, especially if

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 17/07/2024 22:40, Greg Wooledge wrote: hobbit:/etc/pam.d$ dpkg -S /etc/pam.d/common-session dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /etc/pam.d/common-session Where does that file come from, then? This file contains the following: # As of pam 1.0.1-6, this file is managed by pam-auth-up

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 20:51:40 +0200, Franco Martelli wrote: > If you plan to add your contribute to the wiki page (see above) in the > section: "Desktop Environments and systemd user services" e.g.: > > - ... > - systemctl --user daemon-reload > - /Restart your Desktop session/ > > Please cons

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 16/07/24 at 15:46, Greg Wooledge wrote: I've added a bit of content to . On 17/07/24 at 04:37, Max Nikulin wrote: daemon-reload is not enough in KDE. krunner and plasmashell services have been started already, so changes would not apply despite

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 17:58:57 +0100, Tim Woodall wrote: > No, I'm talking about sudo, not su. I'm not a sudo user so I can't test > but my understanding is that root inherits the umask of the invoking > user (or it used to) Looks like this is still true. hobbit:~$ bash hobbit:~$ umask 077 hobb

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024, Max Nikulin wrote: On 17/07/2024 15:37, Tim Woodall wrote: umask 077 can come with its own problems when using shared directories. Taking into account old 022 vs. 002 discussions it might be 007. I'm not a sudo user but IIUC,

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 15/07/2024 09:15, Alan D. Salewski wrote: I suspect that most people /do/ change it, once they become aware of it, for the very reason stated in the comment above 'UMASK' in the /etc/login.defs file:     # UMASK is the default umask value for pam_umask and is used by     # useradd and ne

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 22:10:28 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > Do you mean the following bug or something else? > > login: su - doesn't set umask > Fixed in version pam/1.5.3-1 > Tue, 16 Jan 2024 00:19:23 + Huh... given the age of the bug, I expected this was som

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 17/07/2024 15:37, Tim Woodall wrote: umask 077 can come with its own problems when using shared directories. Taking into account old 022 vs. 002 discussions it might be 007. I'm not a sudo user but IIUC, root inherits the umask, which can then c

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024, Jeffrey Walton wrote: Debian is a multi-user operating system. Decisions should be made accordingly. I suppose umask is a moot point on phones and tablets, where single-user is often the use case. umask 077 can come with its own problems when using shared directories.

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 16/07/2024 10:39, Greg Wooledge wrote: hobbit:~$ cat .config/systemd/user/service.d/env.conf [Service] Environment="FOO=%h/test123" "BAR=b a r" hobbit:~$ systemctl --user daemon-reload hobbit:~$ systemctl --user start xterm.service daemon-reload is not enough in KDE. krunner and plasmashell

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Jul 16, 2024, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Somehow I'm glad I stayed away from DEs and systemd up to now. Perhaps I > > just retire before the alternatives aren't viable anymore. Or perhaps, as > > with PulseAudio, I can leapfrog that "tech". > > Retirement is no

Re: umask - default user settings?

Darac Marjal wrote: > I'm not saying that what you did was wrong, but systemd provides a > few shortcuts which can make things a bit more user-friendly. > > On 16/07/2024 04:39, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > OK. Let's follow this path a bit. > > I googled "how to create a systemd user service" and got

Re: umask - default user settings?

Debian is a multi-user operating system. Decisions should be made accordingly. I suppose umask is a moot point on phones and tablets, where single-user is often the use case. On the contrary, modern Android is strongly multi-user. Each "app" tends to be allocated its own user ID. The logic is

Re: umask - default user settings?

I'm not saying that what you did was wrong, but systemd provides a few shortcuts which can make things a bit more user-friendly. On 16/07/2024 04:39, Greg Wooledge wrote: OK. Let's follow this path a bit. I googled "how to create a systemd user service" and got

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 1:45 PM wrote: >[...] > > (The most probable outcome though is even less rosy: everything'll run in > the browser, and Secure Boot will make sure that your hardware refuses to > run anything else, because the chips are sponsored by the Ad Industry. Lol...

Re: umask - default user settings?

Hi, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Somehow I'm glad I stayed away from DEs and systemd up to now. Perhaps I > just retire before the alternatives aren't viable anymore. Or perhaps, as > with PulseAudio, I can leapfrog that "tech". Retirement is no solution. What shall we retirees do when X11 is laid t

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 11:52:29AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 22:21:23 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > > Greg, do you have an example when Environment= in service.d works, but an > > environment.d file does not? > > Oh gods, there's MORE shit to worry about?? Of course ther

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 22:21:23 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > Greg, do you have an example when Environment= in service.d works, but an > environment.d file does not? Oh gods, there's MORE shit to worry about?? Of course there is. Bloody hell. In previous years, I remember exploring environment.d

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 16/07/2024 19:03, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 18:42:40 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: On 16/07/2024 10:39, Greg Wooledge wrote: hobbit:~/.config$ cat systemd/user/xterm.service I am a bit afraid that corner cases might exist because there are no .service files for applications

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 23:39:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > Now we just need for GNOME users to discover a way to configure the > programs that are started as children of dbus, and then we can move > forward. Documentation would be my top priority. If other people want > to try to drum up inte

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 18:42:40 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > On 16/07/2024 10:39, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > hobbit:~/.config$ cat systemd/user/xterm.service > > I am a bit afraid that corner cases might exist because there are no > .service files for applications started from menus and runners Wel

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 16/07/2024 10:39, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 09:58:20 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: cat ~/.config/systemd/user/service.d/umask.conf [Service] UMask=0007 I googled "how to create a systemd user service" and got The following blog posts (0pointer.de) may be a bit outdated, but

Re: umask - default user settings?

Greg Wooledge (12024-07-15): > Neither am I. But more to the point, it appears that the default umask > literally *cannot* be changed in any kind of universal way. There are, > like, half a dozen different places you'd have to apply a change in > order to cover just the *most common* workflows.

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 09:58:20 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > I have naively tried > > cat ~/.config/systemd/user/service.d/umask.conf > [Service] > UMask=0007 > > From xterm and konsole: > > umask > 0007 OK. Let's follow this path a bit. I googled "how to create a systemd user service" and go

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 16/07/2024 08:34, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 08:02:45 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: systemd.exec(5) UMask= [...] [5] refers to . I do not have systemd-homed running (minimal KDE). I have no idea concerning default Gnome installation. My ex

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 9:34 PM Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 08:02:45 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > [...] > > systemd.exec(5) > > > > > UMask= > > > Controls the file mode creation mask. Takes an access mode in octal > > > notation. See umask(2) for details. Defaults to 0022 for

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 08:02:45 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > (I am not convinced that default umask should be changed) Neither am I. But more to the point, it appears that the default umask literally *cannot* be changed in any kind of universal way. There are, like, half a dozen different places

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 15/07/2024 20:03, Greg Wooledge wrote: If you use a Desktop Environment, go to your DE's support mailing list, and ask them how to set your umask so that it works as expected in all of your programs. (I am not convinced that default umask should be changed) systemd.exec(5) UMask= Contro

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 15/07/2024 01:10, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 19:57:45 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: The place to do this is the X session [1]; system-wide in /etc/X11/Xsession.d/... and for each user in ~/.xsessionrc. Does that work in KDE? First of all, it is up to display manager to

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:06 PM Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > > On 14/07/2024 14:09, Hans wrote: > > Dear list, > > > > I am wondering, why on a multiuser system like debian the rights for a > > normal > > user are "rw- r-- r--", (owner: user and ownergroup: usergroup) > > > > Of course there is

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 14/07/24 at 20:44, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: so they aren't children of the GNOME top-level process, and don't inherit the umask or environment from the session. I'm totally willing to believe that KDE is different, but it's not clear whether "Lists" has tried this and failed, or simp

Re: umask - default user settings?

If people on this mailing list are so concerned about other people's umasks, then I would suggest a great starting point would be to start by making it POSSIBLE for other people to set their umasks the way they want. If you use a Desktop Environment, go to your DE's support mailing list, and ask t

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 2024-07-15 14:30, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: I'm not sure if the Debian default should be changed, though. One thing to consider is that in modern software development practices the idea of secure/private by default is getting more and more important and implemented. It is good practice

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 14/07/2024 14:09, Hans wrote: Dear list, I am wondering, why on a multiuser system like debian the rights for a normal user are "rw- r-- r--", (owner: user and ownergroup: usergroup) Of course there is a reason for this, but it is not understandable for me. First two are clear: rw for myse

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 09:04:54 +0200, Hans wrote: > Also, when some other applicatiions are setting correct rights. > Some do, some don't. File bug reports against the ones which don't.

Re: umask - default user settings?

> The door is closed by default in bookworm. User home directories are > created with 0700 mode, see /usr/share/doc/adduser/README.gz and > /usr/share/doc/adduser/NEWS.Debian.gz As a result, it is necessary to > set ACLs e.g. to run unprivileged LXC containers. That is not the point. The point us,

Re: umask - default user settings?

Here is some cool ascii art to illustrate permissions after mount. The (x)_b notation indicates that x is in base b. # permissions # rwxr-xr-x dirs local dmask=022 # (22)_8 = (10010)_2 local fmask=133 # (133)_8 = ( 1011011)_2

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 2024-07-14 22:15:34, "Alan D. Salewski" spake thus: [...] The user's umask value would matter less if the default perms of user $HOME directories were 077 s/were/were from a umask of/

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 22:15:34 -0400, Alan D. Salewski wrote: > As it is, it > looks[1] like default perms for $HOME are 0755. If home directories are created with adduser, then the contents of /etc/adduser.conf are relevant: # The permissions mode for home directories of non-system users. # D

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 2024-07-14 19:38:26, Hans spake thus: Hi Greg, yes, did already change it. However, this looks like a security hole for me, as I believe, not many people or admins are changing this. I suspect that most people /do/ change it, once they become aware of it, for the very reason stated in th

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 15/07/2024 01:32, Hans wrote: I see itthe other way round. No, if you are in the secure area, it is the responsibility of the owner to make it secure by design i.e with dself closing doors where you can not look into or windows with curtains. The door is closed by default in bookworm. User h

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 08:31:23PM +0200, Me wrote: > On 2024-07-14 19:57, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Xsession > > Did you actually try this? I did and it did not what I was expecting it to > do. But maybe I should try again, maybe things have improved in the

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 2024-07-14 19:57, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 07:44:35PM +0200, Lists wrote: On 2024-07-14 19:18, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 19:09:54 +0200, Hans wrote: I am wondering, why on a multiuser system like debian the rights for a normal user are "rw- r-- r--"

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 2024-07-14 19:43, Me wrote: Setting umask in your shell profile isn't that hard indeed. I've doing that for years. However, that does not mean your DE will honour that setting. I have tried to do so for KDE (more specifically Krusader), but I ended up nowhere. I haven't found a setting that

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 02:10:46PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 19:57:45 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > Does that work in KDE? At least The Internet (TM) (from some cursory poking) seems to say so. I stay away from DEs for... reasons, so I can't test it. >

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 2024-07-14 19:18, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 19:09:54 +0200, Hans wrote: I am wondering, why on a multiuser system like debian the rights for a normal user are "rw- r-- r--", (owner: user and ownergroup: usergroup) Tradition, and a culture based around sharing. The Unix c

Re: umask - default user settings?

* 2024-07-14 19:44:35+0200, li...@nodatagrabbing.com wrote: > Setting umask in your shell profile isn't that hard indeed. I've doing > that for years. However, that does not mean your DE will honour that > setting. I have tried to do so for KDE (more specifically Krusader), but > I ended up now

Re: umask - default user settings?

I see itthe other way round. No, if you are in the secure area, it is the responsibility of the owner to make it secure by design i.e with dself closing doors where you can not look into or windows with curtains. However, I presume, debian wants to be secure. If no one cares and all agree with

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 19:57:45 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 07:44:35PM +0200, Lists wrote: > > Setting umask in your shell profile isn't that hard indeed. I've doing that > > for years. However, that does not mean your DE will honour that setting. > The place to do th

Re: umask - default user settings?

Hans (12024-07-14): > Greg, I do not agree. If I am writing a document with private content, then I If you are writing something confidential, it is your responsibility to lock the door of your office. Regards, -- Nicolas George

Re: umask - default user settings?

Greg, I do not agree. If I am writing a document with private content, then I do not want to let it be read by someone else except me. No one has to read any letters or cv's or maybe documents for my lawyer, my medic, my friends or whatever. And after years there are a lot of documents one is

Re: umask - default user settings?

Hi, Hans wrote: > I am wondering, why on a multiuser system like debian the rights for a > normal user are "rw- r-- r--", (owner: user and ownergroup: usergroup) Because the usual umask of 0022 keeps the more credulous programs from giving w-permission to everybody. Any program is free to hand ou

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 07:44:35PM +0200, Lists wrote: > On 2024-07-14 19:18, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 19:09:54 +0200, Hans wrote: > > > I am wondering, why on a multiuser system like debian the rights for a > > > normal > > > user are "rw- r-- r--", (owner: user and ownerg

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 19:44:35 +0200, Lists wrote: > Setting umask in your shell profile isn't that hard indeed. I've doing that > for years. However, that does not mean your DE will honour that setting. I > have tried to do so for KDE (more specifically Krusader), but I ended up > nowhere. I hav

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 19:38:26 +0200, Hans wrote: > Hi Greg, > > yes, did already change it. However, this looks like a security hole for me, > as I believe, not many people or admins are changing this. > > IMO debian should change this in the next release, but I doubt it. > > I will ask the

Re: umask - default user settings?

On 2024-07-14 19:18, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 19:09:54 +0200, Hans wrote: I am wondering, why on a multiuser system like debian the rights for a normal user are "rw- r-- r--", (owner: user and ownergroup: usergroup) Tradition, and a culture based around sharing. The Unix c

Re: umask - default user settings?

Hi Greg, yes, did already change it. However, this looks like a security hole for me, as I believe, not many people or admins are changing this. IMO debian should change this in the next release, but I doubt it. I will ask the security team for it, they will decide. Have fun! Hans Am Sonntag

Re: umask - default user settings?

On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 19:09:54 +0200, Hans wrote: > I am wondering, why on a multiuser system like debian the rights for a normal > user are "rw- r-- r--", (owner: user and ownergroup: usergroup) Tradition, and a culture based around sharing. The Unix culture of openness and freedom (specifica

Re: umask for GUI applications?

On Tue 10 Nov 2015 at 20:06:16 (+0200), Tapio Lehtonen wrote: > [presumably tomás wrote: ] > > > > For desktopless users (like me, Fvwm), the "classic" X session mechanism > > applies, rooted in /etc/X11/Xsession. > /etc/X11/Xsession would affect all users. Unless there is some stuff > there that

Re: Re: umask for GUI applications?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 07:36:53PM +0100, Sven Arvidsson wrote: [...] > There's an ancient bug about gdm overriding umask: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683815 Oh, noes. Now the question is -- is Xsession reloaded after gdm? If

Re: Re: umask for GUI applications?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:06:16PM +0200, Tapio Lehtonen wrote: > > I'd expect this to be the job ow whatever session manager you are > > afflicted with. For example, if you're "on" Gnome, I'd look into > > .gnomerc; I don't know whether Freedesktop ha

Re: Re: umask for GUI applications?

On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 20:06 +0200, Tapio Lehtonen wrote: > > I'd expect this to be the job ow whatever session manager you are > > afflicted with. For example, if you're "on" Gnome, I'd look into > > .gnomerc; I don't know whether Freedesktop has come up with a > > common > > theme for that. > > T

Re: Re: umask for GUI applications?

> I'd expect this to be the job ow whatever session manager you are > afflicted with. For example, if you're "on" Gnome, I'd look into > .gnomerc; I don't know whether Freedesktop has come up with a common > theme for that. There seems to be no .gnomerc file anywhere. Display Manager is gdm3. Win

Re: umask for GUI applications?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:27:26AM +0200, Tapio Lehtonen wrote: > Is there a documented or supported way to set umask for GUI > applications in Debian GNU/Linux? > > I have project directory, where directories have +s and files and > directories are g

Re: umask has no man page?

While I like the dhelp script idea, I think man is a pure UX issue - man should generally DWIM because if I type "man foo", I don't want to jump through hoops. There times (looking at libraries and system calls and the like) that knowing the system helps. However, with >20 (IDR how many - a bunch)

Re: umask has no man page?

Andrei POPESCU wrote: > songbird wrote: >> are you suggesting which be altered or the >> manual page be amended to include more information >> about what to do when which fails to report any >> matching command? > > I'd rather see which(1) be more informative about built-ins. there's a lot of

Re: umask has no man page?

On Lu, 10 nov 14, 21:49:30, songbird wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > On Lu, 03 nov 14, 13:56:36, Alexis wrote: > >> zsh, however, is more helpful: > >> > >> $ which umask > >> umask: shell built-in command > > > > Maybe a (wishlist) bug against debianutils is in order? > > is zsh providing a

Re: umask has no man page?

Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 03 nov 14, 13:56:36, Alexis wrote: >>=20 >> Iain M Conochie writes: >>=20 >> > However: >> >=20 >> > $: which umask >> > $: >> >=20 >> > So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary >> > called umask on the system) >>=20 >> zsh, however, is more h

Re: umask has no man page?

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:38:40AM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > My apologies, > your question(s?) were unclear and obfuscated with false > assertions. > > Hopefully a "beginner" would start at the start, i.e.:- > help help > info info > man man So you've never met a beginner and fo

Re: umask has no man page?

On 03/11/14 13:56, Alexis wrote: > > Iain M Conochie writes: > >> However: >> >> $: which umask >> $: >> >> So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary >> called umask on the system) > > zsh, however, is more helpful: > > $ which umask > umask: shell built-in command BAS

Re: umask has no man page?

On 02/11/14 16:58, Carl Fink wrote: > On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> Succinct! >> >> man pam_umask? > > That is not a solution to the original question I asked, My apologies, your question(s?) were unclear and obfuscated with false assertions. Hopefully

Re: umask has no man page?

Le 03.11.2014 04:30, Joe Pfeiffer a écrit : Carl Fink writes: When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed to be for C header files and came from section 2.) This is darn confusing for a

Re: Re: umask has no man page?

On Lu, 03 nov 14, 13:56:36, Alexis wrote: > > Iain M Conochie writes: > > > However: > > > > $: which umask > > $: > > > > So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary > > called umask on the system) > > zsh, however, is more helpful: > > $ which umask > umask: shell buil

Re: umask has no man page?

Karl E. Jorgensen writes: > Well, it *appears* that zsh is more helpful. But only because the > "which" command itself is a built-in for zsh :-) (it isn't for bash) > > So you have the opposite problem: "man which" gives you the wrong > manual page :-) (but presumably very similar) Indeed you'

Re: Re: umask has no man page?

Hi On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:56:36PM +1100, Alexis wrote: > > Iain M Conochie writes: > > > However: > > > > $: which umask > > $: > > > > So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary > > called umask on the system) > > zsh, however, is more helpful: > > $ which umask >

Re: umask has no man page?

Joe Pfeiffer writes: > The underlying problem is that umask isn't a standalone command, it's a > shell builtin. So if you look at the bash manpage you can find the > (very terse) documention; of course, there's no hint anywhere that you > should do that. Just as for (looking at some other built

Re: umask has no man page?

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, The Wanderer wrote: > [...] > You might be able to find something out from 'man -d umask', and > examining the resulting debugging output... it seems to indicate exactly > what file it ends up using, and what path it takes in figuring out what > file to use. Though

Re: umask has no man page?

Carl Fink writes: > When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man > page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed > to be for C header files and came from section 2.) > > This is darn confusing for a new user. I have been around long enough

Re: umask has no man page?

On 11/02/2014 at 09:44 PM, Joel Rees wrote: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:26 AM, The Wanderer > wrote: > >> On 11/02/2014 at 10:12 AM, Joel Rees wrote: >> >>> Seems to be done, not by symlink, but in the man db. >> >> What leads you to that conclusion? >> >> AFAIK, if 'man xyz' brings up a man

Re: Re: umask has no man page?

Iain M Conochie writes: > However: > > $: which umask > $: > > So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary > called umask on the system) zsh, however, is more helpful: $ which umask umask: shell built-in command Alexis. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ..

Re: umask has no man page?

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:26 AM, The Wanderer wrote: > On 11/02/2014 at 10:12 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > >> [...] >> Seems to be done, not by symlink, but in the man db. > > What leads you to that conclusion? > > AFAIK, if 'man xyz' brings up a man page from section 1, then there is > an xyz.1 or xyz.

Re: umask has no man page?

Perhaps apropos is your friend here? :$ apropos umask pam_umask (8)- PAM module to set the file mode creation mask As I said in the original, I found it almost immediately. However, doesn't the Debian policy manual require a man page for every program? Not being a DD or DM I cannot

Re: umask has no man page?

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 03:51:25PM +, Iain M Conochie wrote: > > On 02/11/14 05:58, Carl Fink wrote: > >On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > >>Succinct! > >> > >>man pam_umask? > >That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless you > >alias it to man umask

Re: umask has no man page?

Joel Rees writes: > I think there was an OS back way back when, that had a "learn" > command. (As in, "I want to `learn' about .") Don't remember > which, though. Or it might have been an app. UNIX: http://itservices.usc.edu/unix/commands/learn/ -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA

Re: umask has no man page?

On 11/02/2014 at 10:51 AM, Iain M Conochie wrote: > On 02/11/14 05:58, Carl Fink wrote: > >> On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> >>> Succinct! >>> >>> man pam_umask? >> >> That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless >> you alias it to man umask. You

Re: umask has no man page?

On 02/11/14 05:58, Carl Fink wrote: On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: Succinct! man pam_umask? That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless you alias it to man umask. You don't _type_ pam_umask. Carl Perhaps apropos is your friend here? :$ apropos

Re: umask has no man page?

On 11/02/2014 at 10:12 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:35 PM, The Wanderer > wrote: > >> On 11/02/2014 at 03:23 AM, Joel Rees wrote: >>> Hmm. What do I get when I try to do a man umask? >>> >>> BASH_BUILTINS (1) >>> >>> I wonder why. I have a memory of doing something like ins

Re: umask has no man page?

On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:35 PM, The Wanderer wrote: > On 11/02/2014 at 03:23 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > >> 2014/11/02 11:19 "Carl Fink" : >> >>> When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got >>> the man page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C >>> programmer, but it seemed t

Re: umask has no man page?

On 11/02/2014 at 03:23 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > 2014/11/02 11:19 "Carl Fink" : > >> When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got >> the man page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C >> programmer, but it seemed to be for C header files and came from >> section 2.) >> >>

Re: umask has no man page?

2014/11/02 11:19 "Carl Fink" : > > When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man > page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed > to be for C header files and came from section 2.) > > This is darn confusing for a new user. I have been around

Re: umask has no man page?

On 2014-11-02 04:06 +0100, The Wanderer wrote: > On 11/01/2014 at 10:18 PM, Carl Fink wrote: > >> Surely a symbolic link could be set up for umask as well as the >> others (bg, eval, fg, read, etc.)? > > One could, but I don't think I'd say it would be a good idea, and > although the Debian bash m

Re: umask has no man page?

On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Succinct! > > man pam_umask? That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless you alias it to man umask. You don't _type_ pam_umask. Carl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject

  1   2   >