Re: Directory permissions and ownership -- RFC

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

I like that better then trying to wrap do_install and such with special code.

It should be fairly easy to set the default for do_install and do_package then.
 I wonder if there would be a way to "notice" and flag as possible errors tasks
running between do_install and do_package (in a single recipe) that may need the
umask set as well.

--Mark

On 6/21/11 5:05 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 14:12 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 6/21/11 1:57 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 11:43 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>>> Adjust the umask to 022.  This resolves the problem of dynamically generated
>>>> directories (mkdir -p) and specific files (touch foo) having odd permissions.
>>>>
>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=mhatle/perms&id=d8470b6a8efdbba04cef5d4dc1ce12720fe83621
>>>
>>> Are you confident that this isn't going to break anything like
>>> group-shared DL_DIRs?  I'm not entirely thrilled about forcing the umask
>>> to 022 for everything that bitbake does, although I can see that making
>>> it be so for particular tasks like do_install() might have some merit.
>>> Even in the latter case, though, I wonder whether we should just be
>>> paying more attention to recipe hygiene and using "install -m ..." with
>>> the permissions that we actually want.
>>
>> This is why I bring this up.. I'm a bit concerned that doing it generally will
>> have unintended consequences.  So far I am not aware of any.  Moving it to a
>> different place in the process may be better.  The only issue I've found so far
>> is that just coding int into "do_install" really isn't an option.  Between the
>> custom do_install components, various classes, etc.. it's difficult in the
>> current infrastructure to find a centralized location to set the value.
>>
>> (I'd love to be corrected if someone things of another way of doing it.)  The
>> setting of the umask is a very low cost operation, so doing it for certain steps
>> shouldn't cause a performance penalty... but until we figure that out this is
>> the best and easiest solution I've come up with.
> 
> How about a umask flag for tasks?
> 
> If bitbake sees it for a given task it would set the umask as indicated
> for the task. Cheap and easy and would only impact do_install tasks...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core