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
> 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.), 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