On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 10:29 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 3/9/12 8:15 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > > * Explicitly set umask to 022. Otherwise the build system's > > umask leaks into the image. > > I'm surprised that do_package_ipk[umask] didn't work. Perhaps its the way > it's > being invoked that is the issue. (If bitbake doesn't run it, but something > else > does.. then the umask setting doesn't get used.) > > As for the change of the umask, the changes appear to be specific to the ipk > case. Is this the desired behavior, or could deb and rpm suffer from similar > issues? (I'm not familiar enough with opkg to know how it handles umask > settings during package install/rootfs construction..) > > I believe that RPM sets a default umask when it goes through it's package > installs/rootfs generation. But does DEB?
I'm also a bit worried about this patch. I'd like to understand why a task level umask doesn't work. That shouldn't even make any difference since the permissions/owners/users from install should be getting used... Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
