From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] tar-tree: add the "tar.applyUmask" config option Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:33:48 -0700 Message-ID: <7vd5c1jkc3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20060719214025.GA10997@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jul 20 00:34:05 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G3KcC-0003ub-A4 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:34:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932548AbWGSWdu (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:33:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932553AbWGSWdu (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:33:50 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.241.36]:49630 "EHLO fed1rmmtao03.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932548AbWGSWdt (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:33:49 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060719223348.ZVIW2704.fed1rmmtao03.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:33:48 -0400 To: Willy Tarreau In-Reply-To: <20060719214025.GA10997@1wt.eu> (Willy Tarreau's message of "Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:40:25 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Willy Tarreau writes: > While I agreed with Linus that the very permissive file modes set in tar > archives were not particularly a problem for kernel users, I'm finding > that for some other projects it sometimes becomes really annoying, to > the point that I finally considered using a plain tar instead. This is a > shame because tar-tree is really fast an powerful, and I like its ability > to enforce permissions when those of the local dir might be wrong for > various reasons. I do not have problem with an option to allow a non-default behaviour in this area. Maybe we might want to be able to set the mask in the configuration file as well, perhaps like... tar.umask = user ;# use from the current process' tar.umask = 0 ;# same as default tar.umask = 002 ;# group friendly