On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 21:17 +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > 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... > > can you please give some advise on how to continue with this issue?
I understand half the problem now, the files with the issues are ones created during the package_ipk task. That addresses one of my big concerns. The second thing I'd like to understand is why a task level umask doesn't resolve this. Looking at what you tried, this might be as simple as a typo: do_package_ipk[umask] = "022" when you really want: do_package_write_ipk[umask] = "022" If that works, lets set this for deb and rpm too so we're consistent and I'll merge that patch :) Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
