--U3s59FfKcByyGl+j
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 05:56:01PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Changing the permissions of /home is likely to be completely harmless
> -- it is hard to imagine anyone would want permissions OTHER than root
> owned, 755.

But if I'm using AFS, FAT32, NFS (auto)mounted from Solaris, or
anything in the potential future wrt file ACLs, I'd really rather
you DIDN'T squash my settings, thanks. *Especially* the mask and a
potential sgid bit (remember, *we* do the sane thing with new
directories created under the group owner of the parent, but SysV
doesn't, and, statistically, I'm probably NFS mounting from Solaris).

> Could anyone come up with a specific instance of this
> having been a problem for them, especially in the case where they are
> using /home as an NFS mount point?

No, but I can think of places where it'd really cheese me off if I
were using NetBSD there (I'm not; it's Work).

> If you don't have a /home, creating an empty directory you don't use
> is fairly harmless, just as even if you don't use vi, having vi in
> /usr/bin/vi is fairly harmless.

But it's clutter, and confusing in the long term. Having vi(1) is
part of being POSIX. Having /home isn't... is it?

--=20
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net

--U3s59FfKcByyGl+j
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE+UvAq9ehacAz5CRoRAteCAKCXfiEqLTDzikT3i6PqzCgU8SmRPACfS3zA
ER+UxpZ9l41H5K0GHrhMMfw=
=+qRF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--U3s59FfKcByyGl+j--