On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15/03/10 10:54, Xavier Chantry wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Allan McRae<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 15/03/10 09:36, Dan McGee wrote: >>>> >>>> commit a4e3fd18474186ac81acca91adecbb905aee3357 >>>> Author: Allan McRae<[email protected]> >>>> Date: Tue Jan 26 23:29:31 2010 +1000 >>>> >>>> makepkg: only strip files that are writable >>>> >>>> TODO: >>>> >>>> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-January/010390.html >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Allan McRae<[email protected]> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dan McGee<[email protected]> >>> >>> Hmmm.... that one was not quite finished yet which is why it was not on >>> my >>> working branch. (I put it on a wip = "work in progress" branch). >>> >>> Nevermind! Apart from a strange commit message, it is still an >>> improvement >>> on the pre-patch state. :P >>> >>> >>> >> >> Looks like I never got to answer your mail. >> >> I wrote a stupid 10 lines bash program that tested every permission, >> and it seemed that both r and w were needed for strip. >> But IIRC, I did one test inside makepkg (so using fakeroot) and got >> different results. >> Actually I was probably so confused by the permissions I got in >> package built by makepkg that I completely gave up. >> >> Now I remember why I did not answer, I have only new confusions to >> bring... > > I had similar testing that was strange... I really do not understand how > you can strip a file without r+w permissions. But my testing seemed to > indicate that you can strip a -r+w file. And you seem to be able to strip > any file if you are root. And yes, from memory, fakeroot appears to be > somewhere in between. >
What are we doing differently ? [xav...@xps-m1530 ~]$ cp /bin/ls . [xav...@xps-m1530 ~]$ chmod -u+w ls [xav...@xps-m1530 ~]$ ls -l ls --w------- 1 xavier users 102104 Mar 15 02:10 ls [xav...@xps-m1530 ~]$ strip ls strip:ls: Permission denied > I think the current patch at least avoids any errors and the associated > output during stripping files which is an improvement. But I wonder if it > should be more clever and change the permissions of files before striping to > ensure all files get stripped and then revert afterwards. > That sounds a bit crazy but I don't know :) No strong opinion either way.
