On 20.06.2017 16:52, Thomas Karlsson wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> I have several packages that install files that need to be owned by specific 
> users on the target system. To achieve that I'm using the install command 
> with the -o <username> and -g <group name> flags in the package() function. 
> I'm not using a install script with a post_install() function.
> 
> Example of the relevant part of the package function
> 
> package() {
>   install -m 600 -o username -g groupname the_file 
> "$pkgdir"/some/path/to/the_file
> }
> 
> The package is built on a build server and then installed on a number of 
> targets. This has worked fine up until I upgraded to 5.0.2
> 
> After upgrading pacman to 5.0.2 the file does not get the correct owner on 
> the target system any more. It gets own by the user that has the UID that the 
> user has on the build server which is not the same UID as the user has on the 
> target.
> 
> To clarify. In my setup the UID of the user is different on the build server 
> compared to the UID of the target system. Before this did not matter. The 
> file got the correct ownership anyway. After 5.0.2 the file gets owned by 
> whatever user account that has the UID and GID that the user has on the build 
> server no matter what UID and GID the user has on the target system.
> 
> As far as I can tell this is probably the commit that changed the behavior
> https://git.archlinux.org/pacman.git/commit/?h=release/5.0.x&id=908769b54002e104b90ab2b3e5ca8066affd4394
> 
> 
> Temporarily I have changed my PKGBUILD file to specify UID and GID that the 
> target system has instead of the username and groupname on the install 
> command but this seems fragile as it now requires that the UID/GID is the 
> same on all target systems. Both existing and future.
> 
> Is this an unintended side effect of the commit referenced above, or is this 
> the expected behavior?
> 
> Best regards,
> Thomas Karlsson
> 
> 

Hi,

if you'd read the messages of that thread referenced in the commit linked in 
your message,
especially that one: 
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2017-March/021922.html ,
you'd know:

Yes, this is expected behavior.

-- 
regards,
brainpower

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to