On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 21:17 +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:

On 12.03.2012 16:53, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 10:29 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:

quoted

On 3/9/12 8:15 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:

quoted

* Explicitly set umask to 022. Otherwise the build system's
   umask leaks into the image.

I'm surprised that do_package_ipk[umask] didn't work.  Perhaps its the way it's 
being invoked that is the issue.  (If bitbake doesn't run it, but something else 
does.. then the umask setting doesn't get used.)

As for the change of the umask, the changes appear to be specific to the ipk 
case.  Is this the desired behavior, or could deb and rpm suffer from similar 
issues?  (I'm not familiar enough with opkg to know how it handles umask 
settings during package install/rootfs construction..)

I believe that RPM sets a default umask when it goes through it's package 
installs/rootfs generation.  But does DEB?

I'm also a bit worried about this patch. I'd like to understand why a
task level umask doesn't work. That shouldn't even make any difference
since the permissions/owners/users from install should be getting
used...

can you please give some advise on how to continue with this issue?

I understand half the problem now, the files with the issues are ones
created during the package_ipk task. That addresses one of my big
concerns.

The second thing I'd like to understand is why a task level umask
doesn't resolve this. Looking at what you tried, this might be as simple
as a typo:

do_package_ipk[umask] = "022"

when you really want:

do_package_write_ipk[umask] = "022"

If that works, lets set this for deb and rpm too so we're consistent and
I'll merge that patch :)

Cheers,

Richard