On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Hubert Grzeskowiak <arch-general-ml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Aaron Griffin schrieb: >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Hubert Grzeskowiak >> <arch-general-ml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hubert Grzeskowiak schrieb: >>>> Aaron Griffin schrieb: >>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Hubert Grzeskowiak >>>>> <arch-general-ml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Aaron Griffin schrieb: >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Hubert Grzeskowiak >>>>>>> <arch-general-ml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> hi there, >>>>>>>> can it be, that the some dirs written to /var/lib/pacman/local/* are not >>>>>>>> chmod'ed properly? sometimes i get errors because as user i don't have >>>>>>>> the permissions to do anything with it (it's set to drwx------). this >>>>>>>> only occurs on some packages (eg. the new nmap package). other dirs and >>>>>>>> files inside all (also the corrupted) directories seem okay (files: >>>>>>>> -rw-r--r--; dirs: drwxr-xr-x) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i played around with umask and sudo (always used on de-/installations) >>>>>>>> with no result -everything was okay- so i conclude it's a per-package >>>>>>>> problem. >>>>>>> It's not, those files are not installed directly out of the package - >>>>>>> pacman writes them itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is root's umask? >>>>>>> >>>>>> root's and user's umask is the same: 0077 >>>>> Can you try setting it to 0022 (the default, and what I have on my >>>>> system) and see if the problem persists? If it does not, we then know >>>>> the cause... >>>>> Still, pacman's explicit chmod of this dir should fix this... gah. >>>>> >>>>> Dan, does pacman also explicitly set its own umask anywhere? >>>>> >>>> ok. gonna change it before updating the next time >>>> >>> upgraded as root with umask 0022 and it's all okay. >> >> That's so weird... so pacman's umask setting just doesn't work? >> > > either that or it's sudo. i've only tested it with the default umask so > far and without sudo. if the bug would appear there, it would be easy to > say that it's pacman setting his own strange permissions. > > i think, we need a few more tests for a precise statement: > -sudo pacman with non-default umask > -su/root pacman with non-default umask > sry that i don't make it myself, but i'm currently kinda out of time > unfortunately. sudo might do some weird LD_PRELOAD magic, causing the umask() syscall to not really work right- that is my best guess. -Dan
