On Fri, 2022-12-09 at 05:23 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 2022-12-08 at 21:28 +0000, James Le Cuirot wrote: > > This was happening when running a prefix as root, which we don't really > > support, but also when building a prefixed system under ROOT. > > > > Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/779181 > > Signed-off-by: James Le Cuirot <ch...@gentoo.org> > > --- > > eclass/acct-group.eclass | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/eclass/acct-group.eclass b/eclass/acct-group.eclass > > index 590a2f20ed8e..f55c9f4c9587 100644 > > --- a/eclass/acct-group.eclass > > +++ b/eclass/acct-group.eclass > > @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ acct-group_src_install() { > > acct-group_pkg_preinst() { > > debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "${@}" > > > > - if [[ ${EUID} -ne 0 ]]; then > > + if [[ ${EUID} -ne 0 || -n ${EPREFIX} ]]; then > > einfo "Insufficient privileges to execute ${FUNCNAME[0]}" > > return > > fi > > I dare say the message is not necessarily correct here but I suppose it > doesn't matter that much.
Yeah, I thought that too, but not enough for such a corner case.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
