Re: [PATCH] package_ipk: apply umask to control and conffiles

[Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>]

On 12.03.2012 16:53, Richard Purdie wrote:
> 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...

The two per-package files "conffiles" and "control" affected by this
patch don't get installed by recipes. package_ipk.bbclass creates them.

Regards,
Andreas