On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 23:44, Martin Pool wrote: > I made one change in 2.11 which should improve this: lock and state > files are now created with 666/777 permission, masked only by the > user's umask. So if you're lucky, having root use your distcc_dir > will not necessarily break things. However, on a machine with a tight > umask, it is possible to have for example root end up owning > ~mbp/.distcc. I can't think of any good solution to that yet.
Cool.
With some changes to Portage (Gentoo bugs 29171 and 29313) functionality
to obtain the GCC version in a different way was added, along with the
creation of /var/tmp/portage/.distcc/{state,lock} automatically.
These portage changes are in 2.0.49-r6, on which distcc-2.11 now
depends.
Though, since -r6 will be in testing for a while the distcc changes will
likely make it easier to put [distcc] into arch before Portage.
As an aside, are there security implications of such wide permissions?
--
Regards,
-Lisa
<Vix ulla tam iniqua pax, quin bello vel aequissimo sit potior>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
__ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
