Message170131
| Author |
r.david.murray |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, loewis, ned.deily, r.david.murray, tpievila |
| Date |
2012年09月09日.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年09月09日 20:06:07 | r.david.murray | set | recipients:
+ r.david.murray, loewis, ned.deily, Arfrever, tpievila |
| 2012年09月09日 20:06:07 | r.david.murray | set | messageid: <1347221167.74.0.498810222532.issue15890@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012年09月09日 20:06:07 | r.david.murray | link | issue15890 messages |
| 2012年09月09日 20:06:07 | r.david.murray | create |
|