On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The introduction of non-persistent /run has apparently created an > issue where some RPM packages raise verification issues depending on > the umask present when a process from that package starts. The issue > is further explained in a tracking bug here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553916 > Please don't link bugs no one can read. > While arguably not a showstopper for Fedora, it's certainly an > annoyance to have RPMs not verify post-installation when a packaged > service is started. This situation's also potentially harmful > downstream to RHEL. It means that customers who have to go through > audit processes for STIG[1] compliance will get dinged (even if > explainable) for this packaging issue. > > Note that in the tracking bug above, there's a reference to a specific > example which was fixed appropriately for resource-agents: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462802 > > Would packaging folks agree that it's worth fixing files not using > tmpfiles.d (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d) to do > so? > > Regardless of the bugs no one can read, I agree moving to tmpfiles.d files makes sense. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
