[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

apt-get source: bug or feature?


I probably have a misunderstanding about apt-get and its source-function:
Usually "apt-get source" should be possible for the normal user.

But if the user has no read-permissions to /var/lib/apt/lists/*_Sources,
"apt-get source"  fails. Since those files are created with "apt-get
update" I do something like this on my machine (because otherwise I would
forget umask 022 too often):

-- /root/bin/apt-get --
umask 022
exec /usr/bin/apt-get.real "$@"
-- snap --


# dpkg-divert --add --rename --divert /usr/bin/apt-get.real /usr/bin/apt-get
# cp /root/bin/apt-get /usr/bin/apt-get

Now I would like to know if letting the superuser specify the file access
permissions for /var/lib/apt/list/*_Sources is a bug or a feature (maybe
some people like it this way). If it is a feature, it would be nice to
have a config-switch for apt to change its behaviour.


P.S. I haven't sent a bug report yet, I thought I should ask about the
expected (or specified?) behaviour of apt first.

Reply to: