Em qui., 13 de ago. de 2026, 07:42, Petr Sklenar via devel < [email protected]> escreveu:
> Hi, > > while testing F45 Rawhide I noticed systemd complaining during boot: > > Configuration file > /usr/lib/systemd/system/flatpak-add-fedora-repos.service > is marked executable. Please remove executable permission bits. > Proceeding anyway. > > It turns out file 5.47 now classifies .service files as > application/x-wine-extension-ini instead of text/plain. This breaks > brp-mangle-shebangs, which greps for text/ to find executable files > without shebangs and chmod -x them. > > So any package using install -p without explicit -m 0644 for unit > files ends up shipping them with 0755. The big ones (systemd, httpd, > nginx...) set permissions explicitly, so they are unaffected. > > I couldn't find a better way to check this than downloading the RPMs > and scanning them directly, since repodata don't include file > permissions: > > dnf5 download --repo=rawhide --destdir /tmp/scan/ <package-list> > > for f in /tmp/scan/*.rpm; do > rpm -qlp --dump "$f" \ > | grep -E '/usr/lib/systemd/.*\.(service|socket|timer)' \ > | grep '0100755 ' > done > > On an installed system it's simpler: > find /usr/lib/systemd -type f -name '*.service' -perm /111 -ls > > I scanned all 1160 packages that ship unit files in rawhide > (x86_64 + noarch) and found 20 affected: > > aprsd, archlinux-keyring, asahi-battery, > containernetworking-plugins, crossfire, flatpak, > gnupg2 (dirmngr, gpg-agent, keyboxd), grub2-tools, > ip-sentinel, liquidwar-server, Perlbal, restmbmaster, > scsi-target-utils, sgx-aesm, spindown, up-imapproxy, > vaultwarden, vsomeip3-routingmanager > > Filed bugs: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2513643 (file) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2513837 (redhat-rpm-config) > > Note that these packages were built during the F45 mass rebuild, > so even if file or brp-mangle-shebangs gets fixed, these 20 > packages won't pick up the fix until they are rebuilt individually. > > RPM developers also pointed out in BZ#2512037 that relying on > brp-mangle-shebangs for this is fragile anyway, and specs should > just use install -m 0644. > > Should we file individual bugs for these 20 packages, or fix the > specs directly? Either way they'll need a rebuild. I can go ahead > and file the bugzilla tickets if that makes sense. > > -- > Petr Sklenar > > -- > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > 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/[email protected] > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new Hello all, I have a few notes/questions about this: * .service files are effectively based on .ini syntax, so it makes a lot of sense they are are recognized as .ini files * I don't get at all why it being recognized as an .ini for handling with wine would actually warrant executable permission, what does wine try to do with it? * Why don't we have a mime type specific to systemd units instead of relying on text/plain? We do know they have most characteristic of an .ini plus having several specific extensions that are usually only used with systemd. Thanks for your time, Mateus Rodrigues Costa
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
