Is it typical for a TM install to have 'admin' as the group, given a default umask? Just curious.
-- Best regards, Lang Riley
According to Lang Riley:
Is it typical for a TM install to have 'admin' as the group, given a default umask? Just curious.
Look at the parent directory's group ownership. BSD semantics dictates that new files inherits the directory's group ownership. Most SYSV systems (as most Linux install are) emulates this through the use of group setuid bits (chmod g+s .$dir) on directory.
On 1. mar 2005, at 11:17, Ollivier Robert wrote:
According to Lang Riley:
Is it typical for a TM install to have 'admin' as the group, given a default umask? Just curious.
Look at the parent directory's group ownership. BSD semantics dictates that new files inherits the directory's group ownership. Most SYSV systems (as most Linux install are) emulates this through the use of group setuid bits (chmod g+s .$dir) on directory.
Apple changed their permissions around several times. I haven't clean sweeped for some time so I have a lovely mix of staff and admin and other stuff (group) owning my files here and there. At any rate, TextMate doesn't install - you copy it yourself, so it has nothing to do with its own permisions. Also, umask only affects protection bits and not ownership AFAIK.
According to Sune Foldager:
TextMate doesn't install - you copy it yourself, so it has nothing to
Yes, that's I mentionned the directory TM is copied into.
do with its own permisions. Also, umask only affects protection bits and not ownership AFAIK.
Correct.
-
Lang Riley -
Ollivier Robert -
Sune Foldager