On 12.03.2012 16:53, Richard Purdie wrote: > 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...
The two per-package files "conffiles" and "control" affected by this patch don't get installed by recipes. package_ipk.bbclass creates them. Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
