On Sunday 18 November 2007 19:47:07 Reuben Thomas wrote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 November 2007 17:50:24 Reuben Thomas wrote: > >> Package: checkinstall > >> Version: 1.6.1-4 > >> Followup-For: Bug #447779 > >> > >> Instead of changing the permissions to 644, the patch should set the > >> "other" perms to the same as those for "group", i.e. "o=g". > > > > I'm not sure if this is a good thing. Usually the software developer > > knows better than checkinstall which files should have which permissions. > > I am using packages that fail to set the permissions. Specifically, they > fail to override the permissions set by my umask, which is 0027, so files > end up being unreadable once installed (except by the root user). > > The whole point of this patch is to help fix badly set permissions, just > like the patch already fixes badly-set uids, which the software developer > should also get right, but doesn't always.
Hmm, good point. Another question is to wether add a new option or reuse the
reset-uids one. I think it makes sense to use htat one, but it breaks the
principle of least surprise. I'll ask upstream for input.
--
Felipe Sateler
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
