SlackBuild script environment (was Re: [12.2] installpkgmessing up perms)
in [Slackware]
|
Prev: sshfs, no directory count? was: ext4, truecrypt and sshfs, no d...
Next: SlackBuild script environment (was Re: [12.2] installpkg messing up perms)
From: Sylvain Robitaille on 15 Jul 2010 15:29 +Alan Hicks+ wrote: > I think you have a valid point, at least for the umask. Setting PATH > isn't necessarily a bad idea either. Both of these could be added to > our template without causing any problems that I can foresee. Thank you. That's certainly a step towards making your scripts more robust. > With that said, I don't see us going back and changing working scripts > because after several years of SBo one mental midgit experienced a > failure caused by his lack of understanding and bitched about it. I don't think you should let personal opinions (or the fact that the person reporting the problem has turned the discussion into his personal flamewar) interfere with the technical issues at hand. Robby Workman already pointed out that such an edit could be scripted, thus making it relatively trivial to fix existing scripts, ensuring that future users would not run into the same problem. Assuming it really is that simple, I see no solid reason why you wouldn't go ahead and fix existing scripts. Otherwise, perhaps all you need is the help of a few trusted volunteers? > Hundreds or thousands of people have used SBo scripts over the past > years and only this 1 person has ever complained of the problem. That may be true. What it does is explain why such a thing could have been overlooked for so long, though, rather than suggest that the problem isn't real, or that existing scripts couldn't benefit from the fix. > I just don't see a justification for editing a large volume of > existing scripts for such a trivial and rare problem. Full disclosure: I encountered a similar problem early on in my own use of (third-party) SlackBuild scripts. I can't recall for sure whether it was from a script from SlackBuilds.org, one of Robby's, one of Eric's or "other", but that doesn't matter. It caused me to look for the cause of the problem at that time, and of course the fix made it into the template I use for my own scripts. Now, with all of that said, what SlackBuilds.org does with its existing scripts is up to the folks that are represented by SlackBuilds.org. I have no personal investment in the matter, except to hope that by proposing this fix I've helped make these scripts more usable for more people in the long term. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvain Robitaille syl(a)encs.concordia.ca Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sylvain Robitaille on 16 Jul 2010 00:46 Grant wrote: > Yes, there were some teething issues, nothing serious enough to make > the FAQ? Not that I saw, but if you have text to propose, it certainly should be considered. > Should something gained from all this flamage be added to the FAQ? We may end up arguing over what the "answer" to the question should be, or maybe even how the question should be worded. Note that Alan's point comes to mind, that this really has not been a frequently encountered issue (and therefore not a "frequently asked question"). > And to answer something you asked upthread, adding SBo accessories is > a bit different from the initial install, because the environment is > no longer controlled as it is during the install. I don't recall asking it, but yes, I agree with your point here. > I think that's what I was trying to say, when writing about 'real' > root login vs the various 'fake' root logins that might cause trouble. My point was that there isn't anything "fake" or "not real" about euid=0. You still have root privilege. The idea of "login as root to get a 'known' environment" implies a decree that one will never change the default environment of the root account. I don't think that's a scalable approach. > I'm trying to remember too, which part of the installer requires that > old, particular version of tar? I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it has to do with the options used in installpkg when calling tar. I imagine there was some functionality that was deemed necessary, but had been removed from later versions of tar. I've not studied the matter, since it has always worked fine as it is. > Or was that issue fixed when the new compression method was added? Try this: xzcat /path/to/some-package.txz | tar-1.13 tvf - That's one of the reasons having "packages" be simple tar files is a really good thing. :-) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvain Robitaille syl(a)encs.concordia.ca Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Jones on 19 Jul 2010 17:01 Responding to Eef Hartman: > Grant <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: >> That's what I mean by the observation that one can expect a known root >> environment only during the install. So adding accessories should do >> the additional checks or changes you suggested early on? > > Pat's updates do expect the normal "root" environment too (the ones in > slackware-<version>/patches/packages). So essentially, do not mess up > Pat's normal root umask/path because otherwise those will result into > the same kind of problems: drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2010-06-30 > 06:46:47 ./ drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2010-06-30 06:46:47 install/ > -rw-r--r-- root/root 368 2010-06-30 06:46:47 install/doinst.sh > -rw-r--r-- root/root 852 2010-06-30 06:46:47 install/slack-desc > drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2010-06-30 06:46:47 usr/ drwxr-xr-x > root/root 0 2010-06-30 06:46:47 usr/lib/ (the beginning of > 13.1's libtiff-3.9.4 update). > > As you see with a 077 umask that will f'up the whole root filesystem. Been there, done that, didn't get a T-shirt. ;) -- *=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ *=( For all your UK news needs.
From: Sylvain Robitaille on 19 Jul 2010 23:21
Eef Hartman wrote: > As you see with a 077 umask that will f'up the whole root filesystem. You've confirmed in a later message that this is not the case, and I can assure you that I've been installing Slackware supplied package updates for years on systems with an altered root umask, without any difficulty. Slackware's packages are correctly built, and (usually?) set permissions of newly created files (in doinst.sh) explicitly to what is expected. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvain Robitaille syl(a)encs.concordia.ca Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |