Re: Unowned system directories
On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 10:42:13 AM EST Rob Crittenden wrote: > What's strange is that /etc/ipa is owned by freeipa-client-common and > freeipa-server-common so I'm not sure how it became orphaned. Is it > possible some of these are leftovers after package install/uninstall? I thought maybe sssd was intended to own it. My bad. It's now deleted. :-) -Steve ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Unowned system directories
On 11/23/21 22:13, Steve Grubb wrote: ``` $ rpm -qf /var/cache filesystem-3.14-7.fc35.x86_64 ``` Top level ownership is not good enough because we have to be able to determine what is in use now vs what I can delete. For this particular one, I always assumed that I can delete anything in /var/cache. I think the current recommendation for PackageKit hogging / space is still rm -rf /var/cache/PackageKit ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Unowned system directories
> /var/cache/ibus I filed a bug for this one. Thanks, Jens ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Unowned system directories
On 11/24/21 06:34, Steve Grubb wrote: And, I was also very surprised to find 10's of gigabytes of data in $HOME/.cache/debuginfod_client I don't know how it got there, why it's so big, or how to limit it. I believe that would be abrt/gdb downloading debuginfo to create a stack trace for submitting. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Unowned system directories
Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 4:51:36 AM EST Miro Hrončok wrote:
Should there be a gating or other test that catches this?
>>>
>>> I've also noticed this problem, but with old python directories
>>> lingering after upgrades.
>>> For example, on my upgraded-from-ages-ago Fedora 35 Workstation
>>> machine, I still had empty directory trees for old pythons, i.e.
>>> directory trees containing empty "package" directories and empty
>>> __pycache__ directories in
>>> /usr/lib{,64}/python3.{7,8,9}/site-packages/
>>> Looks like a missing file / directory ownership problem in some python
>>> packages.
>>
>> Yes, I regularly file bugzillas for packages that do that.
>
> Therein lies the problem. I did not include the findings from /usr/share.
> There are too many problems for me to start filing bug reports. But I think
> if
> a package has exclusive use of a directory in /var/cache /var/log /var/spool
> /var/lib /etc /usr/share, it should declare ownership. It is a very simple
> test to write. This can be megabytes of old logs or data.
>
> And, I was also very surprised to find 10's of gigabytes of data in
> $HOME/.cache/debuginfod_client I don't know how it got there, why it's so
> big, or how to limit it.
What's strange is that /etc/ipa is owned by freeipa-client-common and
freeipa-server-common so I'm not sure how it became orphaned. Is it
possible some of these are leftovers after package install/uninstall?
rob
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Unowned system directories
On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 4:51:36 AM EST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >> Should there be a gating or other test that catches this?
> >
> > I've also noticed this problem, but with old python directories
> > lingering after upgrades.
> > For example, on my upgraded-from-ages-ago Fedora 35 Workstation
> > machine, I still had empty directory trees for old pythons, i.e.
> > directory trees containing empty "package" directories and empty
> > __pycache__ directories in
> > /usr/lib{,64}/python3.{7,8,9}/site-packages/
> > Looks like a missing file / directory ownership problem in some python
> > packages.
>
> Yes, I regularly file bugzillas for packages that do that.
Therein lies the problem. I did not include the findings from /usr/share.
There are too many problems for me to start filing bug reports. But I think if
a package has exclusive use of a directory in /var/cache /var/log /var/spool
/var/lib /etc /usr/share, it should declare ownership. It is a very simple
test to write. This can be megabytes of old logs or data.
And, I was also very surprised to find 10's of gigabytes of data in
$HOME/.cache/debuginfod_client I don't know how it got there, why it's so
big, or how to limit it.
Cheers,
-Steve
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Unowned system directories
On 24. 11. 21 10:32, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 8:37 PM Steve Grubb wrote:
Hello,
I am preparing to migate a F35 system to new hardware and was sanity checking
the whole system. One thing I found was that there are a number of system
directories that that are not owned by the package that uses them:
/var/cache/ibus
/var/cache/PackageKit
/var/cache/cups
/var/log/anaconda
/var/lib/tpm2-tss
/var/lib/machines
/var/lib/hsqldb
/var/lib/cs
/var/lib/rpcbind
/var/lib/portables
/etc/module-build-service
/etc/default
/etc/pesign
/etc/ipa
/etc/ndctl
/etc/flatpak
Should there be a gating or other test that catches this?
I've also noticed this problem, but with old python directories
lingering after upgrades.
For example, on my upgraded-from-ages-ago Fedora 35 Workstation
machine, I still had empty directory trees for old pythons, i.e.
directory trees containing empty "package" directories and empty
__pycache__ directories in
/usr/lib{,64}/python3.{7,8,9}/site-packages/
Looks like a missing file / directory ownership problem in some python packages.
Yes, I regularly file bugzillas for packages that do that.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Unowned system directories
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 8:37 PM Steve Grubb wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am preparing to migate a F35 system to new hardware and was sanity checking
> the whole system. One thing I found was that there are a number of system
> directories that that are not owned by the package that uses them:
>
> /var/cache/ibus
> /var/cache/PackageKit
> /var/cache/cups
> /var/log/anaconda
> /var/lib/tpm2-tss
> /var/lib/machines
> /var/lib/hsqldb
> /var/lib/cs
> /var/lib/rpcbind
> /var/lib/portables
> /etc/module-build-service
> /etc/default
> /etc/pesign
> /etc/ipa
> /etc/ndctl
> /etc/flatpak
>
> Should there be a gating or other test that catches this?
I've also noticed this problem, but with old python directories
lingering after upgrades.
For example, on my upgraded-from-ages-ago Fedora 35 Workstation
machine, I still had empty directory trees for old pythons, i.e.
directory trees containing empty "package" directories and empty
__pycache__ directories in
/usr/lib{,64}/python3.{7,8,9}/site-packages/
Looks like a missing file / directory ownership problem in some python packages.
Fabio
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Unowned system directories
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 02:37:36PM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > /var/lib/machines > /var/lib/portables I added those two as %ghost in systemd now. Zbyszek ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Unowned system directories
Maxwell G via devel kirjoitti 24.11.2021 klo 2.11: Hi, On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:37:36 PM CST Steve Grubb wrote: Hello, I am preparing to migate a F35 system to new hardware and was sanity checking the whole system. One thing I found was that there are a number of system directories that that are not owned by the package that uses them: /var/cache/ibus /var/cache/PackageKit /var/cache/cups /var/log/anaconda /var/lib/tpm2-tss /var/lib/machines /var/lib/hsqldb /var/lib/cs /var/lib/rpcbind /var/lib/portables /etc/module-build-service /etc/default /etc/pesign /etc/ipa /etc/ndctl /etc/flatpak Yes, I have also noticed issues with directory ownership. However, I am not sure what the rules are about packages owning directories under `/var/cache` or `/var` in general. I can tell you that the `filesystem` package owns `/var/cache` itself: ``` $ rpm -qf /var/cache filesystem-3.14-7.fc35.x86_64 ``` The guidelines do not have any special discussion of /var or its subdirectories, so all the usual rules apply. However, for /var/cache and /var/log subdirectories at least, I may be that the package does not actually place any files to those directories. I that case the %ghost directive can be used to flag a path as "at runtime, this path may be created; if so, it is owned by this package". I do not see anything about that in the guidelines, though. Perhaps there should be an entry about that, too? By the way, some of those have already been fixed in Rawhide, for example PackageKit [1]. [1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PackageKit/c/7b07cba28db86c0983ec51caaf33868f598fb3dd?branch=rawhide There are also some directories that are owned by multiple packages, e.g. shell completions packages[1,2], instead of none at all. This is allowed by the guidelines, in certain cases at least. In general, the current guidelines regarding directory ownership are terribly unclear. Some time ago, I submitted a pull request to explain everything more clearly [2]. I am not sure why it is not being merged, as I have addressed all feedback that has been given. [2]: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1061 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Unowned system directories
On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 7:11:31 PM EST Maxwell G wrote: > Hi, > > On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:37:36 PM CST Steve Grubb wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am preparing to migate a F35 system to new hardware and was sanity > > checking the whole system. One thing I found was that there are a number > > of system directories that that are not owned by the package that uses > > them: > > > > /var/cache/ibus > > /var/cache/PackageKit > > /var/cache/cups > > /var/log/anaconda > > /var/lib/tpm2-tss > > /var/lib/machines > > /var/lib/hsqldb > > /var/lib/cs > > /var/lib/rpcbind > > /var/lib/portables > > /etc/module-build-service > > /etc/default > > /etc/pesign > > /etc/ipa > > /etc/ndctl > > /etc/flatpak > > Yes, I have also noticed issues with directory ownership. However, I am > not sure what the rules are about packages owning directories under > `/var/cache` or `/var` in general. I can tell you that the `filesystem` > package owns `/var/cache` itself: If they use it, they should declare it. Otherwise how do you know what you can safely rm -rf ? If you have migrated a system over many releases, this is important so that you know what can safely be deleted. > ``` > $ rpm -qf /var/cache > filesystem-3.14-7.fc35.x86_64 ``` Top level ownership is not good enough because we have to be able to determine what is in use now vs what I can delete. > There are also some directories that are owned by multiple packages, e.g. > shell completions packages[1,2], instead of none at all. That is a separate problem. > > Should there be a gating or other test that catches this? > > I think there should be. For your reference, here[3,4] are the sections of > the Fedora Packaging Guidelines surrounding directory ownership. I think either rpmlint and/or gating should verify ownership. There is a problem of common ownership. But as long as someone owns it, this helps to know if we can rm -rf the directory. -Steve ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Unowned system directories
Hi, On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:37:36 PM CST Steve Grubb wrote: > Hello, > > I am preparing to migate a F35 system to new hardware and was sanity checking > the whole system. One thing I found was that there are a number of system > directories that that are not owned by the package that uses them: > > /var/cache/ibus > /var/cache/PackageKit > /var/cache/cups > /var/log/anaconda > /var/lib/tpm2-tss > /var/lib/machines > /var/lib/hsqldb > /var/lib/cs > /var/lib/rpcbind > /var/lib/portables > /etc/module-build-service > /etc/default > /etc/pesign > /etc/ipa > /etc/ndctl > /etc/flatpak Yes, I have also noticed issues with directory ownership. However, I am not sure what the rules are about packages owning directories under `/var/cache` or `/var` in general. I can tell you that the `filesystem` package owns `/var/cache` itself: ``` $ rpm -qf /var/cache filesystem-3.14-7.fc35.x86_64 ``` There are also some directories that are owned by multiple packages, e.g. shell completions packages[1,2], instead of none at all. > Should there be a gating or other test that catches this? I think there should be. For your reference, here[3,4] are the sections of the Fedora Packaging Guidelines surrounding directory ownership. Thanks, Maxwell [1]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZSXQBRTQ6YJGE4LIBZ32BFABE6BLIOW7/ [2]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ERPOO3YGBHUJAMNXCEIUXGGH6LWEA7LN/ [3]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership [4]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Unowned system directories
Hello, I am preparing to migate a F35 system to new hardware and was sanity checking the whole system. One thing I found was that there are a number of system directories that that are not owned by the package that uses them: /var/cache/ibus /var/cache/PackageKit /var/cache/cups /var/log/anaconda /var/lib/tpm2-tss /var/lib/machines /var/lib/hsqldb /var/lib/cs /var/lib/rpcbind /var/lib/portables /etc/module-build-service /etc/default /etc/pesign /etc/ipa /etc/ndctl /etc/flatpak Should there be a gating or other test that catches this? Thanks, -Steve ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
