Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpcupt1!hpisod2!decot
From: decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.bugs
Subject: Re: CNews problems
Message-ID: <11490006@hpisod2.HP.COM>
Date: 9 Dec 89 00:17:29 GMT
References: <13657@reed.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 15

> >I'm reluctant to do so as default, however, on the assumption that the
> >umask is usually set for a good reason.
> 
> and what was the good reason berzerkeley used to change the behavior
> of chmod so that it used the umask?

For the reason that the user has set their umask that way for a good (to
them) reason.  Sloppy users and scripts who do "chmod +x" when they
really meant "chmod u+x", as evidenced by their umask, are likely to
get themselves in trouble if +x is taken to mean "a+x".

The current draft of POSIX.2 requires the umask to be consulted when
the "who" part of the mode specification is omitted.

Dave Decot