Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:3382 news.software.b:1382
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!octopus!pete
From: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,news.software.b
Subject: Re: Dir Permissions
Summary: We have it too. Happens when group is created 'on purpose'.
Keywords: Usenet Trouble
Message-ID: <241@octopus.UUCP>
Date: 31 May 88 13:54:28 GMT
References: <113@3bee2.UUCP> <377@ziebmef.UUCP> <883@rivm05.UUCP>
Reply-To: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann)
Organization: Octopus Enterprises, Cupertino CA
Lines: 51

In article <883@rivm05.UUCP> ccea3@rivm05.UUCP (Adri Verhoef) writes:
}>In article <113@3bee2.UUCP> lyman@3bee2.UUCP (William S. Lyman Jr.) writes:
}>>  I am running the News software for Usenet and when it goes to create
}>>a directory for the new group it is not what I defined it for in local-
}>>ize.sh it is making them Owner root Grp root. 

}And rnews IS set[ug]id news.

}Yes, I have seen this behaviour before on three of our machines, a 3b2
}running sysV 2.0.4, a 3b2 running 2.0.5, and a microVAX II running V.2,
}I checked the modes of rnews/inews, and they were OK.
}I checked news log files, I checked uucp log files, no funny things.
}
}I tried to have the error repeat itself, but it won't show up again
}under "normal" circumstances.
}
}I haven't seen the error showing up on sysV.3 machines.  

}But how and why does this happen?  A kernel error?  System V.2 bug?
} Somebody?
}
}Remember: I tested this twice today, but the newly created directory gets
}its owner "news", so it acts quite good most of the time, I think.
}A few questions:
}- did all the other directories get created OK?
}- was this the first time?
}- what version of UNIX are you running?
}- are you at patchlevel 14 (B news 2.11)?

Well, we've got the same problem here, running V.2 with some Berkeley
utilities and line driver stuff added in (a Stride Micro). I've noticed
a few things that may be helpful:

	- If the group gets created by default (an article comes in under
	    a new group name; we accept the distribution already, so
	    the group gets auto-created), then the owner/group/perms are
	    just fine.
	- If the new group gets created by an administrative command from
	    afar (as happens with most new groups), the permissions are
	    ALWAYS wrong (root/root).
	- Don't know about locally created groups. I've never done it.
	- We are running patchlevel 14

Maybe this will help?

Pete

-- 
  OOO   __| ___      Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises
 OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
  OOOOO \___/        UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete
___| \_____          Phone: 408/996-7746