installpkg messing up perms
in [Slackware]
|
From: Joost Kremers on 13 Jul 2010 12:35 Dario Niedermann wrote: > and others I can't recall, since I didn't think/know at the time that > the issue was related to installpkg. as others have pointed out already, the issue is *not* related to installpkg. the issue is with the permissions set in the package itself. -- Joost Kremers joostkremers(a)yahoo.com Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht EN:SiS(9)
From: Sylvain Robitaille on 13 Jul 2010 12:36 Dario Niedermann wrote: > If the packages are "broken" ... installpkg should IN MY OPINION > handle the case gracefully, ... In your opinion, installpkg should have sufficient intelligence to "decide" that the package is broken? > In general, regardless what a package might say, I really don't see > why a package installer should touch permissions on directories like > '/', '/usr', '/etc'. The "package" in Slackware is nothing more than a tar file. The package installer, installpkg, is simply a front-end to the tar command (plus some additional functionality). It doesn't actually touch the permissions on any of the directories. This behaviour is simply the result of those directories within the tar file (or "package" in this case) not having the correct permissions. The solution, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is to fix the package. > Installpkg is the only package installer I've seen in my life that > will do this. It doesn't do this. However, I'm fully confident that I could create an equally broken .rpm or .deb package, and indeed installing those packages with their respective package installers will also result in incorrect permissions of the higher-level directories. You've told the package installer to install a broken package. It did as you commanded. Now you want it to have done as it saw fit rather than as you commanded? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 13 Jul 2010 12:43 Franz Sauerzopf wrote: > As far as I read this conversation, the OP is building the SlackBuilds > via sudo, in contrast to calling them as root, as intended. Correct, I think. It's unreasonable for these scripts to depend on the user's environment matching the developer's, rather than explicitly setting up the environment they need. This was clearly an oversight, though, and in the case of what's being reported here, it's pretty trivial (though perhaps time-consuming, given the volume of scripts to consider) to fix. > I cannot be helpful there, ... Grab a handful of *.SlackBuild scripts, add a umask setting to them, and send diffs back to slackbuilds.org? I'm sure they'd find it helpful ... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvain Robitaille syl(a)encs.concordia.ca Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Helmut Hullen on 13 Jul 2010 12:51 Hallo, Dario, Du meintest am 13.07.10: >> If yes: which packet? Which SlackBuild script? > It happened several times, most recently with 'cmus': > http://slackbuilds.org/repository/12.2/audio/cmus/ How have you invoked the script "cmus.SlackBuild": as root or as another user (with some kind of "su" or "sudo")? Viele Gruesse Helmut "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
From: Dario Niedermann on 13 Jul 2010 13:51
Sylvain Robitaille <syl(a)alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: > In your opinion, installpkg should have sufficient intelligence to > "decide" that the package is broken? Yes it should. It doesn't take a *lot* of intelligence, after all, to avoid touching permissions on directories that pre-exist the package installation. > The "package" in Slackware is nothing more than a tar file. The package > installer, installpkg, is simply a front-end to the tar command (plus > some additional functionality). In that added functionality, there should also be provisions to avoid messing up the user's filesystems. >> Installpkg is the only package installer I've seen in my life that >> will do this. > > It doesn't do this. Yes it does. > However, I'm fully confident that I could create an equally broken > .rpm or .deb package, and indeed installing those packages with their > respective package installers will also result in incorrect > permissions of the higher-level directories. I've never seen it happen with both systems, so I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you. > You've told the package installer to install a broken package. No, I didn't tell it to "install a broken package". I told it to install a package. As a result of the package being broken, instead of issuing an error or a warning, installpkg silently screwed up permissions. -- > head -n1 /etc/*-{version,release} && uname -moprs Slackware 12.2.0 Linux 2.6.27.7-crrm i686 AMD Turion(tm) 64 Mobile Technology MK-36 GNU/Linux |