Re: More dpkg stuff
On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Why? If we can handle such case (umask != *77), why we don't handle
> this?
>
> Grep in scripts/ for 'fowner'
>
> controllib.pl:@fowner = (getpwnam(getlogin()))[2,3];
> dpkg-distaddfile.pl:chown(@fowner, "$fileslistfile.new")
> dpkg-gencontrol.pl:chown(@fowner, "$fileslistfile.new")
> dpkg-shlibdeps.pl:chown(@fowner, "$varlistfile.new") ||
>
> I think, this behaviour is that, what would be expected. Please correct
> me, If I'm wrong.
This can break, for example:
I login as user foo. I su to user bar. I build a package. Oops - now
foo owns the files created by debian/rules.
There's a danger in making things idiot-proof. In general, the
simplest solution is the best one.
Because the rules clean target should rm debian/substvars (if it's
dynamic) and debian/files (prog manual 3.2.[45]), there's nothing wrong
with having them owned by root.
Ian's solution of warning about the umask is simplest. Add something
like this to the top of debian/rules:
expr $(umask -S): '.*o=r' > /dev/null && \
echo "Your umask will probably break dpkg-buildpackage" 2>&1
Guy
Reply to: