Package umask issues

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 12:33 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> Hi Spot,
> 
> During FUDCON2 one of the TODO's I promised you was to send details 
> about package umask issues.  This is only an issue for sysadmins when 
> they insist on using a system umask of 077 supposedly for some hardening 
> reason.  Two kinds of packages then have problems:
> 
> 1) Packages with unowned files or directories.  This of course has an 
> obvious solution, simply own it.  This is already covered in our 
> packaging guidelines.  MUST right?
> 
> 2) Packages which create unpackaged files in scriptlets like %post
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=136030
> This is one example where this caused a problem.  The quick and ugly 
> workaround is to explicitly set umask at the beginning of the scriptlet. 
>   But the correct fix would be to make it so the software does not 
> create files in %post.  The latter solution is not always trivial.
> 
> Should we make #2 a SHOULD or MUST in guidelines?

I'm inclined to add:

MUST: Packages should not create files in %post. All files should be
accounted for in %files.

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!