Bug#203532: tetex-extra: permissions of ls-R wrong
Package: tetex-extra
Version: 2.0.2-4.1
Severity: normal
I get these messages upon upgrade:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fixing permissions and group of ls-R as specified by debconf ...
mode of `/var/lib/texmf/ls-R' changed to 0664 (rw-rw-r--)
mode of `/var/cache/fonts/ls-R' changed to 0664 (rw-rw-r--)
changed group of `/var/lib/texmf/ls-R' to users
changed group of `/var/cache/fonts/ls-R' to users
Setting up tetex-doc (2.0.2-4.1) ...
mktexlsr: Updating /usr/local/lib/texmf/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/cache/fonts/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Done.
Setting up tetex-extra (2.0.2-4.1) ...
mktexlsr: Updating /usr/local/lib/texmf/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/cache/fonts/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Done.
Running initex for missing formats. This may take some time. ...
Output of initex is in /var/tmp/texNvqyDf
----------------------------------------------------------------
and in the end I get this:
/var/cache/fonts:
used 28 available 1658376
drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 Jul 30 19:41 .
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 Jun 4 10:49 ..
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 5723 Jul 30 19:41 ls-R
Notice that ls-R should belong to the users group. Same goes for ls-R
in /var/lib/texmf. I suspect that tetex does the right thing, but then
either tetex-doc or tetex-extra change the group of ls-R. Please note,
however, that I have not investigated this problem in detail, it is only
a guess.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux pot.cnuce.cnr.it 2.4.20 #3 Fri Mar 28 13:50:00 CET 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=it_IT@euro (ignored: LC_ALL set)
Versions of packages tetex-extra depends on:
ii dpkg 1.10.10 Package maintenance system for Deb
ii gsfonts 6.0-2.1 Fonts for the ghostscript interpre
ii perl-tk 1:800.024-1.1 Perl module providing the Tk graph
ii tetex-base 2.0.2-4.1 basic teTeX library files
ii tetex-bin 2.0.2-4.2 teTeX binary files
-- no debconf information
Reply to: