Public Directories

[Tuukka Hastrup]

Sorry about the noise, I interpreted the umask number on my Ubuntu system
wrong...

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Tuukka Hastrup wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> > (But we do NOT have one big public directory, rather seperate
> > directories for different groups, and group membership is required for
> > access. Things are a bit different then).
>
> There could be one group 'users' where everybody gets added to by
> default, like there is a private group for each user. Then you can use the
> same setup for both use cases.
>
> > However, umasks affect permissions, using mv rather than cp affects
> > permissions, moving a file in the same partition or between partitions
> > or over the network or with nautilus etc. give different permissions.
> > And it's way too much to ask the users assign permissions manually.
>
> umask 0022 as it is by default should be enough, is it not? If some tools
> don't honour it, wouldn't that be a bug?

umask 0022 is *not* enough, it should of course be 0002: all permissions
to the user and the group, but no write permission to the world. 0002
could be the default as the users are the only members of their default
group anyway. The default umask is changeable at /etc/profile.

> > I tried making the setup we needed using ACLs, Unix permissions etc. but
> > didn't find a configuration the just worked the "simple" way users
> > expected. So I hacked it with a python script:
>
> Did you try to chmod g+s the group directories? That way, files and
> subdirectories get their group from the parent directory.
>
>
> I suppose this is not for all users and your script would be a good
> addition to default installs, but the configuration above is what I've
> been using this far for workgroups.

-- 
-- Trying to catch me? Just follow up my Electric Fingerprints
-- To help you: Tuukka.Hastrup at iki.fi
                http://www.iki.fi/Tuukka.Hastrup/