On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:48:49 -0500, Colin wrote: > >> I think the conclusion was that this problem would just go away if RPM >> reference counted directories? > > When will that happen? I'd guess earlier than all spec files in Fedora become perfect. I believe Richard Jones said something recently along the lines of "we can't treat rpm and lowlevel tools as unchangeable". > A restrictive umask still creates inaccessible unowned directories when > installing packages. And these bad permissions of such directories cannot > be verified/discovered with "rpm --verify" either. Yeah, I think I remember some flamewar about that. (The solution seems obvious to me; yum should set a fixed umask, if we *really* need to support admins installing RPMs with custom permissions, it only applies when you use rpm -i, not yum). Or instead have a custom --umask argument for rpm. > In other cases, unowned directories are the result of missing > dependencies. And in turn, "yum install foo" installs a non-working > package. Dir refcounting in RPM cannot fix that. Right, but if dependencies are missing things will be broken anyways. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
