Strange problem. Updated fluxbox on 2 machines, one using prt-get update and the other pkgmk -d then pkgadd -u fluxbox.... On both machine this changed the permissions of /dev/null to not writeable by non-root users. The .footprint file shows nothing for that file. Any suggestions? Thanks, Joe
Joe Gilmour wrote:
Strange problem. Updated fluxbox on 2 machines, one using prt-get update and the other pkgmk -d then pkgadd -u fluxbox....
On both machine this changed the permissions of /dev/null to not writeable by non-root users.
The .footprint file shows nothing for that file.
You ran ./configure with root-permissions. # Han -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software/crux/
I always use sudo, but that would have the same effect. I match the permissions on the existing directories for all ports. Actually what would be neat is if/that prt-get could carry the existing directory's permissions to the newly created port, (except for files/directories that get altered in the Pkgfile) Han Boetes wrote:
Joe Gilmour wrote:
Strange problem. Updated fluxbox on 2 machines, one using prt-get update and the other pkgmk -d then pkgadd -u fluxbox....
On both machine this changed the permissions of /dev/null to not writeable by non-root users.
The .footprint file shows nothing for that file.
You ran ./configure with root-permissions.
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 16:34 +1000, Joe Gilmour wrote:
You ran ./configure with root-permissions.
Yes, I ran pkgmk -d/prt-get as root. It must be the ./configure script that changes the permissions, but why would it do that?
Ask the fluxbox developers. Do you have any idea how many processes a configure script and the following compilations run? It's deeply insane to run those processes as root.
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 16:34 +1000, Joe Gilmour wrote:
Yes, I ran pkgmk -d/prt-get as root. It must be the ./configure script that changes the permissions, but why would it do that?
Ask the fluxbox developers. Do you have any idea how many processes a configure script and the following compilations run? It's deeply insane to run those processes as root.
Nah, it's a bug in gcc. And in autotools that they don't workaround it. But most important it is to not run pkgmk as root, and you don't have to. This is an important security improvements I propose. # Han -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software/crux/
Hi, On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 12:43:14 +0200, Diederick de Vries wrote:
Op Friday 16 June 2006 18:53 schreef Han Boetes:
workaround it. But most important it is to not run pkgmk as root, and you don't have to.
And how do I do a
# prt-get sysup
then? Have a look at http://crux.nu/Main/FakerootPorts
There are a few ports known to not build with fakeroot which keeps us from making this the default right now. It's high on the TODO list though, meaning that we hope to have this in CRUX 2.3. HTH, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@smts.ch Zurich, Switzerland http://jw.smts.ch
Johannes Winkelmann <jw@smts.ch> wrote:
There are a few ports known to not build with fakeroot which keeps us from making this the default right now. It's high on the TODO list though, meaning that we hope to have this in CRUX 2.3.
What ports? I only know of DBus, which isn't even in the official repos.
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
Johannes Winkelmann <jw@smts.ch> wrote:
There are a few ports known to not build with fakeroot which keeps us from making this the default right now. It's high on the TODO list though, meaning that we hope to have this in CRUX 2.3.
What ports? I only know of DBus, which isn't even in the official repos.
pkgmk -h|grep rb -rb, --root-build build package with root-permissions # Han -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software/crux/
participants (6)
-
Danny -
Diederick de Vries -
Han Boetes -
Joe Gilmour -
Johannes Winkelmann -
Mark Rosenstand