umask package policy
Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com
Mon May 23 20:20:43 UTC 2005
Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 12:13 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
>
>
>>Should we make it a packaging policy that packages must own all
>>directories and files that it installs in order to avoid umask 077
>>problems like this where the installed software is effectively broken?
>
>
> +1, although I thought that already is a policy at least in Extras. But
> not _all_ directories it installs, only those that are not owned by its
> prerequisite packages.
>
Hmm you are right, but that makes it more difficult to make an automated
test. I guess both tests will require a chroot and installing all deps.
>
>>Also the latter bug is %post creates files with umask 077, leading to
>>similar breakage. Should then the rule be "use umask within %post if it
>>creates files?"
>
>
> I think it would be simpler and cleaner to have rpm execute all
> scriptlets with let's say a 022 umask, and make that umask value
> configurable in eg. /usr/lib/rpm(/$vendor)/macros.
>
This isn't a solution for older distributions, this umask problem is
troubling for RHEL too, and we can't push this rpm change there.
>
>>Can rpmdiff check for this in the future?
>
>
> Are you referring to the rpmdiff distributed with rpmlint, or something
> else?
Automated tests in general.
Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list