Created attachment 386598 [details] patch by quoting The supplied crontab at * /etc/crontab or * /usr/share/doc/fcron-*/crontab contains */10 * * * * test -x /usr/sbin/run-crons && /usr/sbin/run-crons If the user "test" exists in "/etc/passwd" fcron will try to execute "-x /usr/sbin/run-crons && /usr/sbin/run-crons" as user "test" which will fail. Either reference executables in full like "/usr/bin/test" or follow the recommendation of http://fcron.free.fr/doc/en/faq.html#AEN3197 to quote the commands. I will attach possible patches.
Created attachment 386600 [details, diff] patch by rewriting commands to use absolute paths
Thanks for the report. This is now fixed: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=531e27c45e1f413da44d8a51ece0f59e454586fb
*** Bug 630858 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hi. I propose to explicitly put username (root) there. It will break the ambiguity in defininitive way. There will be no chances to interpret command string as user name. In my opinion, if it tries to interpret it as user - the user name should be there. For example if tomorrow somebody will allow usernames with "/" - it will break crontab again.
Basically, I share your opinion and prefer explicit commands. But in this case you would create a new problem: There's no "root" user on all supported architectures and I don't want to drop prefix support for example for no real reason.
> There's no "root" user on all supported architectures Yes, that is a good point. > I don't want to drop prefix support for example for no real reason. You mean specifying full path like /usr/bin/test? Actually I was not arguing with that. So if you are saying it is more probable to have achitectures with no "root" user than achitectures which allows "/" in username - then I will need to agree that just adding full path to commands will be better.
No, https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Prefix When "/" in usernames will be a thing we will re-consider the decision.
