Lionel Le Folgoc
mrpouit at ubuntu.com
Sun Nov 13 10:29:11 UTC 2011
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 07:01:42PM -0800, Evan Broder wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Colin Watson <cjwatson at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 04:04:35PM -0800, Evan Broder wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >> > non-standard-file-perm wants files with perm 0644 instead of 0664. Is
> >> > this a bug in our build farm?
> >> I remember there was a point during the last development cycle where
> >> the umask on the buildds was incorrect. Could this be fallout from
> >> that? It seems to be fairly prevalent in our builds:
> > Yes, there was one such incident due to a broken sudo deployment. We
> > squashed it fairly quickly, but there were some builds in the meantime.
> > I think we checked to make sure that those were all root:root so not too
> > important, but I'd have to check back through IRC logs and the like to
> > make sure.
> > Can you check for more details? I'd like to know if any of these are
> > current, as if so then we still have a buildd problem which we need to
> > fix ASAP. I'd also like to know if there are any files with ownership
> > other than root:root in this set. If you can't get that information
> > easily, then the full list of affected files and packages would be a
> > good start.
> On a second look, I don't actually think this is connected to that
> incident. Benjamin's example package, audacity, was last built 4 weeks
> I've collected all packages/files triggering the warning; it's at
Oneiric packages built before Aug 21st might be affected by Bug #817792
(PNGs optimized by advpng have incorrect permissions). However, as there
are precise packages in this list, I guess the fix is not complete, or
that a similar one is required for SVGs.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ubuntu-devel