[OE-core] [PATCH] package_ipk: apply umask to control and conffiles
obi at opendreambox.org
Mon Mar 26 17:47:04 CEST 2012
On 26.03.2012 13:34, Richard Purdie wrote:
> 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
>> 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
> 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"
thank you, that did it. It wasn't a typo, but lack of understanding of
the "magic" behind it, as I tried to apply the umask to the
do_package_ipk function instead of the do_package_write_ipk *task*.
Please see below for an updated patch.
> If that works, lets set this for deb and rpm too so we're consistent and
> I'll merge that patch :)
More information about the Openembedded-core