Re: pkg_add and umask
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:44:37AM BST, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Related to the forwarded mail below, the mandoc.db files are also
> affected by umask.
>
> Would it make sense for pkg_add and pkg_delete to just force a sane
> umask before starting operations?
Please do - it would be very nice indeed.
This bit me in the arse a while back.
Cheers,
Raf
> - Forwarded message from Marc Espie -
>
> From: Marc Espie
> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:13:53 +0100
> To: Alessandro DE LAURENZIS , ports
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
> Subject: Re: pkg_add and umask [was misc@: Re: Cannot connect to CUPS web
> interface in -current]
> Mail-Followup-To: Alessandro DE LAURENZIS , ports
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:54:34AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > Moving to ports@ ...
> >
> > On 2015/03/10 11:32, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> > > Hello Stuart,
> > >
> > > On Tue 10/03/2015 08:28, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > > Is this while building the port, or just installing from packages?
> > >
> > > Installing from packages. Isn't that expected?
> >
> > Not sure.
> >
> > So:
> >
> > 1. Database files in /var/db/pkg are affected by umask ("pkg_add moo" with
> > umask
> > 077, then you can't "pkg_info moo" as a normal user)
> >
> > 2. Normal installed files from the package are not affected by umask
> >
> > 3. @sample'd files with an explicit @mode are not affected by umask
> >
> > 4. @sample'd files *without* an explicit mode (e.g. normal files installed
> > in
> > /etc) are affected by umask
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 1 could be argued either way, but I think current behaviour is ok.
> >
> > 2 and 3 seem correct to me
> >
> > 4 is surprising to me. Marc, is that intentional?
>
> I kindof think 4 should be forbidden or default'd to something sane, indeed.
>
>
> - End forwarded message -
>
pkg_add and umask
Related to the forwarded mail below, the mandoc.db files are also
affected by umask.
Would it make sense for pkg_add and pkg_delete to just force a sane
umask before starting operations?
- Forwarded message from Marc Espie -
From: Marc Espie
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:13:53 +0100
To: Alessandro DE LAURENZIS , ports
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
Subject: Re: pkg_add and umask [was misc@: Re: Cannot connect to CUPS web
interface in -current]
Mail-Followup-To: Alessandro DE LAURENZIS , ports
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:54:34AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Moving to ports@ ...
>
> On 2015/03/10 11:32, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> > Hello Stuart,
> >
> > On Tue 10/03/2015 08:28, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > Is this while building the port, or just installing from packages?
> >
> > Installing from packages. Isn't that expected?
>
> Not sure.
>
> So:
>
> 1. Database files in /var/db/pkg are affected by umask ("pkg_add moo" with
> umask
> 077, then you can't "pkg_info moo" as a normal user)
>
> 2. Normal installed files from the package are not affected by umask
>
> 3. @sample'd files with an explicit @mode are not affected by umask
>
> 4. @sample'd files *without* an explicit mode (e.g. normal files installed in
> /etc) are affected by umask
>
> ...
>
> 1 could be argued either way, but I think current behaviour is ok.
>
> 2 and 3 seem correct to me
>
> 4 is surprising to me. Marc, is that intentional?
I kindof think 4 should be forbidden or default'd to something sane, indeed.
- End forwarded message -
Re: pkg_add and umask [was misc@: Re: Cannot connect to CUPS web interface in -current]
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:13:53PM GMT, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:54:34AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > Moving to ports@ ...
> >
> > On 2015/03/10 11:32, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> > > Hello Stuart,
> > >
> > > On Tue 10/03/2015 08:28, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > > Is this while building the port, or just installing from packages?
> > >
> > > Installing from packages. Isn't that expected?
> >
> > Not sure.
> >
> > So:
> >
> > 1. Database files in /var/db/pkg are affected by umask ("pkg_add moo" with
> > umask
> > 077, then you can't "pkg_info moo" as a normal user)
> >
> > 2. Normal installed files from the package are not affected by umask
> >
> > 3. @sample'd files with an explicit @mode are not affected by umask
> >
> > 4. @sample'd files *without* an explicit mode (e.g. normal files installed
> > in
> > /etc) are affected by umask
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 1 could be argued either way, but I think current behaviour is ok.
> >
> > 2 and 3 seem correct to me
> >
> > 4 is surprising to me. Marc, is that intentional?
>
> I kindof think 4 should be forbidden or default'd to something sane, indeed.
Hi Marc,
This bit me in the arse a year ago but I hadn't reported it as I was
fairly new to OpenBSD back then.
It would, indeed, be nice to have a sane default and able to use
'pkg_add' without issues - those that use, i.e. UMASK=077, that is :^)
Regards,
Raf
Re: pkg_add and umask [was misc@: Re: Cannot connect to CUPS web interface in -current]
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:54:34AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Moving to ports@ ...
>
> On 2015/03/10 11:32, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> > Hello Stuart,
> >
> > On Tue 10/03/2015 08:28, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > Is this while building the port, or just installing from packages?
> >
> > Installing from packages. Isn't that expected?
>
> Not sure.
>
> So:
>
> 1. Database files in /var/db/pkg are affected by umask ("pkg_add moo" with
> umask
> 077, then you can't "pkg_info moo" as a normal user)
>
> 2. Normal installed files from the package are not affected by umask
>
> 3. @sample'd files with an explicit @mode are not affected by umask
>
> 4. @sample'd files *without* an explicit mode (e.g. normal files installed in
> /etc) are affected by umask
>
> ...
>
> 1 could be argued either way, but I think current behaviour is ok.
>
> 2 and 3 seem correct to me
>
> 4 is surprising to me. Marc, is that intentional?
I kindof think 4 should be forbidden or default'd to something sane, indeed.
pkg_add and umask [was misc@: Re: Cannot connect to CUPS web interface in -current]
Moving to ports@ ...
On 2015/03/10 11:32, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> Hello Stuart,
>
> On Tue 10/03/2015 08:28, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > Is this while building the port, or just installing from packages?
>
> Installing from packages. Isn't that expected?
Not sure.
So:
1. Database files in /var/db/pkg are affected by umask ("pkg_add moo" with umask
077, then you can't "pkg_info moo" as a normal user)
2. Normal installed files from the package are not affected by umask
3. @sample'd files with an explicit @mode are not affected by umask
4. @sample'd files *without* an explicit mode (e.g. normal files installed in
/etc) are affected by umask
...
1 could be argued either way, but I think current behaviour is ok.
2 and 3 seem correct to me
4 is surprising to me. Marc, is that intentional?
