Re: TZ and TERM per process

Article View: mod.std.unix

Article #167

#167

From: Moderator, John Quarterman
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1986 17:27

16 lines
1213 bytes

From: mcnc!duke!rrt@seismo.UUCP (Russ Tuck)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 09:18:42 est
Organization: Duke University, Durham NC

I heartily agree that umask should be per-directory rather than per-process.
This is more natural and useful, allowing related files to be given the same
protection automatically as they are created in a directory.  

What obstacles are there to putting this behavior in Unix, and to allowing it
in the standard?

				Russ Tuck
				rrt%duke.csnet@csnet-relay
				{ihnp4,decvax,mcnc}!duke!rrt

Volume-Number: Volume 5, Number 23

Technical Details

Message-ID: <4060@ut-sally.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!std-unix

References: <4034@ut-sally.UUCP> <4029@ut-sally.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!std-unix
From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman)
Newsgroups: mod.std.unix
Subject: Re: TZ and TERM per process
Message-ID: <4060@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 12:27:50 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.4060
Posted: Tue Jan 28 12:27:50 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Jan-86 06:17:50 EST
References: <4034@ut-sally.UUCP> <4029@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: IEEE/P1003 Portable Operating System Environment Committee
Lines: 16
Approved: jsq@sally.UUCP

Reply to Parent Message