Aaron Griffin schrieb: > 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 > so we have the reason now, but not a solution at all. should we yell at the sudo devs now or patch it ourselves (what would be against arch's ideals)? a pacman hack would be possible, too, but an exception for sudo is kinda dirty. i don't want to reorganize my system settings for a so-called feature in sudo and i'm sure there are many others thinking the same way. H.G.
