On Jul 10, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
On Tuesday 10 of July 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Mark Hatle wrote:
For something to software installs, I think it's reasonable to
set the
default umask instead of using the environment's.
Yes, also my opinion. RPM is an installer and one expects more
that it
operates on its stuff totally independent from the calling
environment.
Setting at least umask in main() is reasonable IMHO.
I agree.
Unfortunately Jeff once disagreed about things like this. For
example %post/%pre etc scripts are not run in clean stable
enviroment -
calling env is used instead.
Yes, that's the approach we use in OpenPKG, too. We actually use this
approach of a "sane environment" for all %xxxx scripts, including and
most notably %build and %install. Without this we many years ago we
resulted in many nice errors from users with umasks settings of 077
and
similar ;-)
The ayes (and lusers) have it. I'll whack a "sane" umask call into main
this evening.
My issue(s) are
1) the workaround, setting umask before invoking rpm, is entirely
feasible.
2) I want to see remote scriptlet execution some day, and I don't want
to carry a umask (or any envvar) setting around.
But the same 2 lines on the remote scriptlet server will work just fine.
BTW, is there any reasonable rcmd(3)-like ssh library around? I've
looked at the OpenBSD thingy but it made my head hurt.
73 de Jeff
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
