From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S77hr-0002qx-82 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:02:43 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2CFs0R3015598 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:54:00 GMT Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 15101-06 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:53:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2CFrs3B015592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:53:55 GMT Message-ID: <1331567634.15192.20.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:53:54 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4F5E1672.7090706@windriver.com> References: <1331345726-9577-1-git-send-email-obi@opendreambox.org> <4F5E1672.7090706@windriver.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] package_ipk: apply umask to control and conffiles X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:02:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 10:29 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 3/9/12 8:15 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > > * Explicitly set umask to 022. Otherwise the build system's > > umask leaks into the image. > > I'm surprised that do_package_ipk[umask] didn't work. Perhaps its the way it's > being invoked that is the issue. (If bitbake doesn't run it, but something else > does.. then the umask setting doesn't get used.) > > As for the change of the umask, the changes appear to be specific to the ipk > case. Is this the desired behavior, or could deb and rpm suffer from similar > issues? (I'm not familiar enough with opkg to know how it handles umask > settings during package install/rootfs construction..) > > I believe that RPM sets a default umask when it goes through it's package > installs/rootfs generation. But does DEB? I'm also a bit worried about this patch. I'd like to understand why a task level umask doesn't work. That shouldn't even make any difference since the permissions/owners/users from install should be getting used... Cheers, Richard