[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: umask builtin

From: Eduardo Bustamante
Subject: Re: umask builtin
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 09:36:49 -0600

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:06 AM, kalle <kalle@projektwerkstatt.de> wrote:
>> From umask(1p):
>>   For a symbolic_mode value, the new value of the file mode creation mask
>>   shall be the logical complement of the file permission bits portion  of
>>   the file mode specified by the symbolic_mode string.
> This sentence is inacceptably complicate. Furthermore, it is not clear
> which symbolic mode string is meant at the end of the sentence, but I
> suppose it has been written by you to undermine the given facts.

Eh, what?

> Am 08.11.2017 um 15:01 schrieb Eduardo A. Bustamante López:
>> Hm, is there a umask program that does this?
>> Looking at the shells I have installed, they all do pretty much the same:
> I did not question this...
> it's just not the easiest logic to have different logics.
> or is the different behavior made clear in some other documentation than
> 'man 1p umask'?

I linked the POSIX standard document in my reply. Here it is
again: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/umask.html

That is how the standard specifies the behavior of the umask builtin.
If your question
is "why is it shown in that way", then the answer is: "because that's
what the standard
says". If you're not happy with the standard, you can go and ask the
Austin Group
about it.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]