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

Re: Proposed upload for fixing 613648 (in stable)

On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 16:03 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:10:23PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 14:49 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
> > > I would like to upload a fixed ganeti package in order to close #613648
> > > (very stupid bug, sorry). Attached are the proposed changes, as
> > Why is ganeti changing the permissions of /var/lock at all?  (Rather
> > than a file within that directory, or a sub-directory if need be).
> That's a bug by itself; however, for stable, I'd rather just fix the
> permissions.
> If you think it's better to fix it as to not touch /var/lock, that can
> be done, but it'll be a slightly bigger patch.

Let's just go with fixing the immediate bug to start with; at least the
permissions it's trying to assign to /var/lock/ are those which it will
have by default on a Debian system anyway.  Please go ahead with the
stable upload.

> > > It's a long time since I did a stable fix, so I might have gotten the
> > > distribution or the versioning wrong; please let me know!
> > 
> > Looking at the bug log, it appears that this also affects unstable, and
> > has not yet been fixed there.  Is that correct?
> It has been fixed, as the version in unstable uses /bin/chmod, not
> Python's os.chmod. /bin/chmod always takes octal, so chmod 1777 is a
> right call.

In that case, the fixed versions of #613648 should be updated to
indicate that it doesn't apply to the version in unstable; maybe track
the "don't touch /var/lock's permissions" as a separate cloned bug?



Reply to: