From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.dream-property.net ([82.149.226.172]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SBB4L-0004G3-P2 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:26:41 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.dream-property.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2B5315A45D; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:17:47 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.dream-property.net Received: from mail.dream-property.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.dream-property.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id dNG3QibSfWPD; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:17:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.22.22.61] (drms-590ec3b4.pool.mediaWays.net [89.14.195.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.dream-property.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02EBE315A45A; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:17:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F6CDA62.3070908@opendreambox.org> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:17:38 +0100 From: Andreas Oberritter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120310 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <1331345726-9577-1-git-send-email-obi@opendreambox.org> <4F5E1672.7090706@windriver.com> <1331567634.15192.20.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: <1331567634.15192.20.camel@ted> 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: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 20:26:41 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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... > > Cheers, > > Richard Richard, can you please give some advise on how to continue with this issue? Regards, Andreas