OK, this is how it *should* look like per sys-process/cronbase ebuild: drwxr-x--- 2 root root 216 2007-06-13 17:11 /etc/cron.daily drwxr-x--- 2 root root 72 2006-03-08 22:05 /etc/cron.hourly drwxr-x--- 2 root root 136 2007-06-22 22:51 /etc/cron.monthly drwxr-x--- 2 root root 72 2007-01-06 13:01 /etc/cron.weekly drwxr-x--- 4 root cron 120 2006-03-08 22:06 /var/spool/cron drwxr-x--- 2 root root 200 2007-06-23 20:10 /var/spool/cron/lastrun Except that portage does *not* change actual directory permissions if the directory already exists (see Bug 141619). A quick poll on #gentoo-dev shows that almost *noone* has the permissions right, most usually they are 0755 root:root, a couple of cases of /var/spool/cron owned by cron user, etc. etc. Also see Bug 182983. Suggested solution: revbump sys-process/cronbase and force chown/chmod in pkg_postinst, which works around portage behaviour.
cron, what's the status here? please advise.
cronbase ebuild activity is rather low. I did the last revbump of vixie-cron and i can take care of cronbase too. (then i should join the cron herd) Just ping me again if noone of the cron herd wakes up.
(In reply to comment #2) > cronbase ebuild activity is rather low. I did the last revbump of vixie-cron > and i can take care of cronbase too. (then i should join the cron herd) > > Just ping me again if noone of the cron herd wakes up. > *ping* :)
Hi arches, cronbase-0.3.2-r1 commited to the tree. After having emerged it, your system should be as described in comment #0. Please test, and mark stable if appropriate, thanks.
(In reply to comment #4) > After having emerged it, your system should be as described in comment #0. *Mainly* that's happened. The only difference is uid/gid bit: drwxr-s--- 2 root cron 4096 wrz 27 00:58 /var/spool/cron/lastrun
Sparc done. It sets ownership/permissions the way bug says it's supposed to.
mips stable.
Stable for HPPA.
x86 stable
alpha/ia64 stable
ppc64 stable
Marked stable on amd64.
ppc stable
If this stays at A4, it needs a vote.
Hmm, this is local, minor impact, so I vote NO.
only information disclosure. No big impact. No and closing. Feel free to reopen if you disagree