FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-04-2008, 12:18 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default fakeroot 1.8.10-2

This version fixes the fakeroot/acl/makepkg bug when using cp -a on
directories. For details, see
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8214#comment22826
 
Old 01-04-2008, 03:55 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default fakeroot 1.8.10-2

On Jan 4, 2008 7:18 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> This version fixes the fakeroot/acl/makepkg bug when using cp -a on
> directories. For details, see
> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8214#comment22826

Wow, the fix doesn't include sweeping code changes and yet this bug
has been around for a while. Where did this patch come from? Does
upstream have it?

-Dan
 
Old 01-04-2008, 04:12 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default fakeroot 1.8.10-2

>> This version fixes the fakeroot/acl/makepkg bug when using cp -a on
>> directories. For details, see
>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8214#comment22826
>
> Wow, the fix doesn't include sweeping code changes and yet this bug
> has been around for a while. Where did this patch come from? Does
> upstream have it?

I took the time and wrote the patch, thus upstream does not have it.
Actually, this patch is only a workaround: It makes it look like the
underlying filesystem never supports ACLs when writing them (you can
still read ACLs though). coreutils falls back to a function called
chmod_or_fchmod in this case, which apparently uses either chmod or
fchmod to set the mode, both of which are wrapped by fakeroot. It may
not fix other broken tools, but I don't know about any other breakage.

For us this is fine, as pacman packages (tarballs) should only contain
normal Unix permissions (I doubt that tar has support for ACLs anyway)
and most of our users don't even use ACLs. However, this does not extend
the fakeroot environment to support ACLs, thus it is not a good thing
for an upstream package: The patch would probably be rejected.
 
Old 01-04-2008, 04:16 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default fakeroot 1.8.10-2

On Jan 4, 2008 11:12 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> >> This version fixes the fakeroot/acl/makepkg bug when using cp -a on
> >> directories. For details, see
> >> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8214#comment22826
> >
> > Wow, the fix doesn't include sweeping code changes and yet this bug
> > has been around for a while. Where did this patch come from? Does
> > upstream have it?
>
> I took the time and wrote the patch, thus upstream does not have it.
> Actually, this patch is only a workaround: It makes it look like the
> underlying filesystem never supports ACLs when writing them (you can
> still read ACLs though). coreutils falls back to a function called
> chmod_or_fchmod in this case, which apparently uses either chmod or
> fchmod to set the mode, both of which are wrapped by fakeroot. It may
> not fix other broken tools, but I don't know about any other breakage.
>
> For us this is fine, as pacman packages (tarballs) should only contain
> normal Unix permissions (I doubt that tar has support for ACLs anyway)
> and most of our users don't even use ACLs. However, this does not extend
> the fakeroot environment to support ACLs, thus it is not a good thing
> for an upstream package: The patch would probably be rejected.

Well, wow, thanks a lot. This is great work.
Do you happen to have a test case for me to test? Or should I just
mount something with ACLs and compare to a package build without ACLs?
 
Old 01-04-2008, 04:43 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default fakeroot 1.8.10-2

On Jan 4, 2008 11:16 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 11:12 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> > >> This version fixes the fakeroot/acl/makepkg bug when using cp -a on
> > >> directories. For details, see
> > >> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8214#comment22826
> > >
> > > Wow, the fix doesn't include sweeping code changes and yet this bug
> > > has been around for a while. Where did this patch come from? Does
> > > upstream have it?
> >
> > I took the time and wrote the patch, thus upstream does not have it.
> > Actually, this patch is only a workaround: It makes it look like the
> > underlying filesystem never supports ACLs when writing them (you can
> > still read ACLs though). coreutils falls back to a function called
> > chmod_or_fchmod in this case, which apparently uses either chmod or
> > fchmod to set the mode, both of which are wrapped by fakeroot. It may
> > not fix other broken tools, but I don't know about any other breakage.
> >
> > For us this is fine, as pacman packages (tarballs) should only contain
> > normal Unix permissions (I doubt that tar has support for ACLs anyway)
> > and most of our users don't even use ACLs. However, this does not extend
> > the fakeroot environment to support ACLs, thus it is not a good thing
> > for an upstream package: The patch would probably be rejected.

I feel like it is worth attaching to the Debian bug report to make a
point. "Look, you've had this bug forever that everyone refuses to
look at and I've made a patch that at least fixes/remedies *broken*
behavior, even if it is not ideal." If they reject it they seem to be
on a bit of a power trip.

And well done on the patch.

> Well, wow, thanks a lot. This is great work.
> Do you happen to have a test case for me to test? Or should I just
> mount something with ACLs and compare to a package build without ACLs?

I don't mount anything with ACLs, but I will be sure everything works
without them (no regressions). I'll test and hopefully signoff later
tonight.

To anyone else- strace might be helpful here to test.

-Dan
 
Old 01-05-2008, 12:32 AM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default fakeroot 1.8.10-2

Aaron Griffin schrieb:
> Well, wow, thanks a lot. This is great work.
> Do you happen to have a test case for me to test? Or should I just
> mount something with ACLs and compare to a package build without ACLs?

Any package that installs manpages to /usr/share/man will be fine
(fakeroot, ntfs-3g). Or just use cp -a (or just cp -p) inside a
PKGBUILD. It seemed fine here for the fakeroot built (I built fakeroot
using the new fakeroot) and in my test case (cp -a a directory inside a
fakeroot and permissions will be f*cked with the old version).

If you feel like reading code you may tell me why cp -a copied files
fine, but not directories.

BTW, tmpfs uses ACLs by default.
 
Old 01-05-2008, 11:53 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default fakeroot 1.8.10-2

On Jan 4, 2008 7:18 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> This version fixes the fakeroot/acl/makepkg bug when using cp -a on
> directories. For details, see
> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8214#comment22826

Signoff, i686, but did *not* test anything dealing with ACLs. However,
I see no regressions anywhere else.

-Dan
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:47 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org