Package umask issues

[Warren Togami]

Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> 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

That isn't going to be easy to fix for all software.  It is desired though.

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com