freebsd stable - Aug 2009 - [PATCH] Portsnap - set a good umask, for ports consistancy

Hi,

I have a case where some users have different umasks (0077 in some  
cases). When these users call portsnap (via sudo), it leaves the port- 
directories permissions in an inconsistent state, and people need to  
use sudo to list files.
I'm not sure honoring "umask" is good from a users-perspective,
even
if umask is a standard UNIX mechanism of directory and file permissions.

I suggest setting a reasonable umask, for the duration of the portsnap  
program. As far as I know, this should only effect /usr/ports, and if  
a user wishes to "hide" the contents of this folder, a manual chmod of
it should not be overridden, until /usr/ports is completely removed  
and recreated.

If this is a bad suggestion, would it be feasible to make it a config- 
option?


BTW, I really like portsnap - it is a great program. Also I'd like to  
note that I am very happy with speed from european mirrors these days,  
which I've been grunting about earlier. Thanks for the effort you put  
into this! :)



Best regards,


Daniel Bond.

Begin forwarded message:
> From: Daniel Bond <db@g5.nsn.no>
> Date: August 25, 2009 10:28:58 AM GMT+02:00
> To: db@danielbond.org
> Subject: [PATCH] Portsnap - set a good umask, for ports consistancy
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20090825/7bc9a307/PGP.pgp

Skipped content of type multipart/mixed-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20090825/c1c0d88c/PGP.pgp