On 24-Apr-2002 Andrew Agno wrote:
> Is it even possible to have a umask set so that newly created files
> have the s bit set? It seems that the only way for this to happen
> is by having an alias which chmods things afterwards or by making dirs
> under dirs with the group s bit set.
>
I assume
Is it even possible to have a umask set so that newly created files
have the s bit set? It seems that the only way for this to happen
is by having an alias which chmods things afterwards or by making dirs
under dirs with the group s bit set.
Andrew.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
On 24-Apr-2002 justin cunningham wrote:
> umask on potato is 022 while on woody it's 0022.
>
> I compared the files listed below and they look like their defaults
> though I'm comparing potato to woody. dunno what the problem is.
>
this is not a "problem" unless you do not want this behaviour
an 'Shaleh'
Perry
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: basic directory perm question
On 24-Apr-2002 justin cunningham wrote:
> Why is it that when I create a directory on one machine an 's' is
added
> to
On 24-Apr-2002 justin cunningham wrote:
> Why is it that when I create a directory on one machine an 's' is added
> to the permissions?
>
> Ex. drwxr-sr-x2 sam sam 4096 Apr 24 05:17 test
> drwxr-sr-x2 rootroot 4096 Apr 24 05:18 test2
>
> while on another machine this
Why is it that when I create a directory on one machine an 's' is added
to the permissions?
Ex. drwxr-sr-x2 sam sam 4096 Apr 24 05:17 test
drwxr-sr-x2 rootroot 4096 Apr 24 05:18 test2
while on another machine this is not the case. I compared /etc/skel
files and there
6 matches
Mail list logo
