Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226111 --- Comment #19 from Alasdair Kergon <agk@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-22 21:40:49 EDT --- I think install -p is something else we should consider upstream rather than in the spec file. I added the licence headers to subpackages as they seemed to be missing from the RPMs in old builds. But it looks like inheritance works now. (Commenting them out then rebuilding still shows them with rpm -qp RPMS/x86_64/lvm2-cluster-2.02.47-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm --qf '%{LICENSE}') mode 555 vs 755: I've always taken the view that the default permissions for every file on the system should be 000 and then only bits that are absolutely necessary should be added to that. So even 555 is a compromise for me - 011 would often suffice! The proponents of 755 would argue that the '7' is documenting the fact that the kernel permits root to read/write/execute. But I counter that by arguing that root is not generally meant to write to those files - that's solely the job of the package manager software (rpm) for very limited periods of time - so the write bit should not be set. This has the advantage that some binaries (e.g. vim) will issue a warning message ("is read-only (add ! to override)") if root attempts to change these files. In other words not setting the owner write bit makes the system more resilient against sysadmin accidents. I'll chase up the person I asked to deal with the init script and see how they're getting on with it:-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review