On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Oh la la. Thank you Xyne! http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=59483
