Re: apt-get source: bug or feature?
Wrong permissions on the sources lists in /var/lib/apt has
been a headache for me too, though I chmod after the fact
by hand instead of this.
An alternate solution would be a post-update action,
much like the pre-invoke and post-invoke dpkg actions
in apt.conf that allow you to, for example, remount
/usr read-only. I looked around, but didn't find such
an option.
-neil
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:05:45PM +0200, Jens Ruehmkorf wrote:
> 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 --
> #!/bin/bash
> umask 022
> exec /usr/bin/apt-get.real "$@"
> -- snap --
>
> and
>
> # 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.
Reply to: