First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 277976
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: NEW
Resolution:
Assigned To: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
subversion.eclass.diff Added ESVN_UMASK with umask invocation (no chmod) patch Maciej Mrozowski 2009-07-15 19:01 0000 1.47 KB Details | Diff
subversion.eclass.diff fixed typo in die message patch Maciej Mrozowski 2009-07-15 19:08 0000 1.47 KB Details | Diff
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 277976 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 277976 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.








View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug

Description:   Opened: 2009-07-15 18:56 0000 
Currently, default umask (022) is applied and it makes directories in svn-src
writable by owner (which is portage).

/usr/portage/distfiles permissions already allow for files to be
written/deleted by portage group, that does not apply to subdirectories however
- specifically source files stored by subversion_src_unpack and other scms.

I'd propose to call umask g+w somewhere in
subversion.eclass:subversion_src_unpack (with optional, but not really needed -
chmod)

------- Comment #1 From Maciej Mrozowski 2009-07-15 19:01:10 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=198089) [details]
Added ESVN_UMASK with umask invocation (no chmod)

Proposed patch, with umask moved to separate eclass variable.

Also patch removes two redundant parameter substitutions.

------- Comment #2 From Maciej Mrozowski 2009-07-15 19:08:35 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=198091) [details]
fixed typo in die message

------- Comment #3 From Maciej Mrozowski 2009-07-15 21:57:07 0000 ------- 
On the second thought, maybe giving too much freedom is not the best approach
(being able to specify umask that will take away read permissions for portage
itself...)
So maybe just fix it to g+w?
I'd need it anyway (along with existing ESVN_OFFLINE=1) to implement developer
mode in kde4 eclass - being able to develop/patch/commit (being in portage
group) directly to ESVN_STORE_DIR and utilize portage sandboxed installation
and file collision prevention.
If you know better (than umask) ways to achieve this, please let me know.

------- Comment #4 From Maciej Mrozowski 2009-07-15 21:58:08 0000 ------- 
CC-ing other folks, maybe they will have some ideas.
First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug