Message170131
| Author | r.david.murray |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Arfrever, loewis, ned.deily, r.david.murray, tpievila |
| Date | 2012-09-09.20:06:07 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1347221167.74.0.498810222532.issue15890@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
It occurs to me that ignoring the user's selected umask could be considered a bug by some people. A package manager for a distribution should presumably ensure the correct umask during install, but if a user is doing a direct install, it seems reasonable to think they are responsible for setting the umask they want used. There is a fuzzy line here, though, because distutils is also a bit of a package manager... Regardless, though, Ned's observation seems to indicate this is not a regression. Tomi, do you find a different behavior in 3.2? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-09-09 20:06:07 | r.david.murray | set | recipients: + r.david.murray, loewis, ned.deily, Arfrever, tpievila |
| 2012-09-09 20:06:07 | r.david.murray | set | messageid: <1347221167.74.0.498810222532.issue15890@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012-09-09 20:06:07 | r.david.murray | link | issue15890 messages |
| 2012-09-09 20:06:07 | r.david.murray | create | |