On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > Why? If we can handle such case (umask != *77), why we don't handle > this? > > Grep in scripts/ for 'fowner' > > controllib.pl:@fowner = (getpwnam(getlogin()))[2,3]; > dpkg-distaddfile.pl:chown(@fowner, "$fileslistfile.new") > dpkg-gencontrol.pl:chown(@fowner, "$fileslistfile.new") > dpkg-shlibdeps.pl:chown(@fowner, "$varlistfile.new") || > > I think, this behaviour is that, what would be expected. Please correct > me, If I'm wrong.
This can break, for example: I login as user foo. I su to user bar. I build a package. Oops - now foo owns the files created by debian/rules. There's a danger in making things idiot-proof. In general, the simplest solution is the best one. Because the rules clean target should rm debian/substvars (if it's dynamic) and debian/files (prog manual 3.2.[45]), there's nothing wrong with having them owned by root. Ian's solution of warning about the umask is simplest. Add something like this to the top of debian/rules: expr $(umask -S): '.*o=r' > /dev/null && \ echo "Your umask will probably break dpkg-buildpackage" 2>&1 Guy
