Fernando Rodriguez <frodriguez.developer <at> outlook.com> writes:
> > Here, all of /etc/portage is root:root This is what I have except for distfiles:: drwxrwxr-x 5 root portage 232K Sep 14 23:00 distfiles root.portage ??? I guess portage does that. Fernando's explaination seem plausible, I guess I'd have to look at the code (not today) but this just seems strange to me that sys-apps/portage would do this... > > The tree and all overlays are portage:portage Mine are root.root but no harm, right? I guess I could change them recursively to portage:portage but why, if portage is just going to do what it wants anyway. > > You can make a local overlay owned by user you want, stuff you hack away > > at yourself should probably be james:james or james:users Yea, I gonna think about /usr/local/portage. I see the convenience of your suggestion, but I have always had most everthing portage:portage. I cannot remember why though..... > > > > Typically, permissions in /etc/portage are the usual 755 for dirs and > > 644 for files > > > > I set overlays and the tree to be 2775 for dirs and 664 for files Yea, I have just let portage do what it wants and never really thought about it before. This seem reasonable. > > Permissions should be what YOU need them to be on your computer. There's > > a default, it's what portage makes them when you install stuff yep, it makes sense that sys-apps/portage is the master of these files, I just never thought about it much before. > > Only root should change the master config files in /etc, just like in > > all other apps IIRC emerge can drop privs to a user account, if that > > user is portage then portage must own the files Ah. makes sense. > > It is true that portage drops privileges to the portage account (unless the > ebuild has RESTRICT="userpriv" or I think FEATURES="-userpriv" on make.conf) Nope these are not set on my make.conf (600) on permissions). > but it doesn't need to write to the portage tree except to the distfiles > directory so I don't know of any reason to have everything owned by > portage:portage if the perms are 755/644. Ah, this is whay my distfiles is root:portage.....? > > Mine is owned by root:root because it got borked one time after a sync so I > deleted it and copied from another box manually. The only problem I ever had > is that a fetch failed, and I just chowned the distfiles dir to portage:portage > to fix it. Only recently it was pointed to me on this list that it was supposed > to be portage:portage. I never changed it back to portage:portage but I made a > mental note not to forget about it in case of trouble, that way I'll learn why > that's the default if/when something breaks :) Besides it offers some (limited) > protection against an ebuild accidentally writing to your portage tree. Interesting. I guess I could look at the code but everything is working fine. > > > In my /usr/local/portage and it's subdirs where I hack on many > > > ebuild, portage.portage owns everything.....? > > > > Make your life easy, chaown that stuff to james > > I personally prefer root:root because I think it is more secure. If you let > somebody use your account even for a minute s/he could modify an ebuild > without a password to install whatever s/he wants next time you run an update. I like Alan's simplicity. I also like root:root, like my /usr/portage, but most of it is portage:portage, and that I did do. I just cant remember why. usr/local/portage/ is the one I need to think about. Thanks for the feedback guys, James
