Simone Dalla Fina wrote:
> Uhm, did anyone warn the VOs about this problem? I don't think they know
> that.
It looks like that indeed. And it occurred to me that their installation
procedures would have to check if the sgm account is static or not!
Something like this:
case `whoami` in
*[0-9])
umask 002
esac
Comments?
> Maarten Litmaath wrote:
>
>>Simone Dalla Fina wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I forgot another problem...
>>>Any new file created by a sgm pool account is created with the default
>>>umask 022 that mask group writing permission. How could we fix it?
>>>I think it's not a good idea to patch system profiles...
>>
>>That is for the VOs to fix in their software installation procedures.
>>It seems very easy to add a "umask 002" as the first command...
|