Jakub Jelinek schrieb:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 02:21:17PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>> There is simply nothing unusual or unexpected about it.
>>>
>>>> - if ((fd = open(fname, readonly? O_RDONLY : (O_RDWR|O_CREAT))) < 0) {
>>>> + if ((fd = (open)(fname, readonly? O_RDONLY : (O_RDWR|O_CREAT))) < 0) {
>>> Now you're just being unfriendly about it by finding ways to defeat
>>> a helpful check instead of adding the missing mode. What point are
>>> you trying to prove by doing this?
>> What would the preferred fix look like? I'd like to get this sorted out,
>> as I'd like to send a patch for one of my affected packages upstream.
>
> Supplying a third argument to open, of course.
> So
> if ((fd = open(fname, readonly? O_RDONLY : (O_RDWR|O_CREAT), 0644)) < 0) {
> is the right fix, judging from
> touch $(DESTDIR)$(statedir)/xtab; chmod 644 $(DESTDIR)$(statedir)/xtab
> touch $(DESTDIR)$(statedir)/etab; chmod 644 $(DESTDIR)$(statedir)/etab
> touch $(DESTDIR)$(statedir)/rmtab; chmod 644 $(DESTDIR)$(statedir)/rmtab
> and xflock being used on xtab/etab/rmtab.
Well... Jakub does take more time and not simply random numbers like
me... :-)
-of
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
