Re: [PATCH] doc: describe the file permissions set by mktemp

[Benoît Knecht]

Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 13/07/11 12:57, Benoît Knecht wrote:
> > * src/mktemp.c (usage): As above, for --help.
> > Reported by Jordi Pujol in http://bugs.debian.org/551093.
> > ---
> >  THANKS.in    |    1 +
> >  src/mktemp.c |    5 +++++
> >  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/THANKS.in b/THANKS.in
> > index 05d5922..8d61a05 100644
> > --- a/THANKS.in
> > +++ b/THANKS.in
> > @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ John Stanley                        address@hidden
> >  John Summerfield                    address@hidden
> >  Jon Peatfield                       address@hidden
> >  Joost van Baal                      address@hidden
> > +Jordi Pujol                         address@hidden
> >  Jorge Stolfi                        address@hidden
> >  Joseph S. Myers                     address@hidden
> >  Josh Triplett                       address@hidden
> > diff --git a/src/mktemp.c b/src/mktemp.c
> > index c6d0e58..0017cbd 100644
> > --- a/src/mktemp.c
> > +++ b/src/mktemp.c
> > @@ -72,6 +72,11 @@ Create a temporary file or directory, safely, and print 
> > its name.\n\
> >  TEMPLATE must contain at least 3 consecutive `X's in last component.\n\
> >  If TEMPLATE is not specified, use tmp.XXXXXXXXXX, and --tmpdir is 
> > implied.\n\
> >  "), stdout);
> > +      fputs (_("\
> > +The group and others get no permission, while the user gets read and 
> > write\n\
> > +permissions (as well as search, for directories), possibly reduced by 
> > the\n\
> > +umask.\n\
> > +"), stdout);
> >        fputs ("\n", stdout);
> >        fputs (_("\
> >    -d, --directory     create a directory, not a file\n\
> 
> It's unfortunate that this runs onto 3 lines

I completely agree. I tried to make it shorter, but couldn't come up
with a good formulation.

> and also I don't like the use of "possibly". How about:
> 
> s/possibly reduced by the umask/umask permitting/

I see your point, but "umask permitting" may be a bit more difficult to
grasp depending on the reader's level of English. How about just
dropping the "possibly"? I was only using it to express the fact that
sometimes the permissions are left unchanged by the umask, but that's
usually implied.

And now that I think of it, "restricted" might be a better word than
"reduced".

I have no strong objections to your suggestion though, so feel free to
commit it that way if you feel it's the best alternative.

Cheers,

-- 
Benoît Knecht