[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c
From: |
Samuel Thibault |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Jun 2015 14:20:05 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30) |
Svante Signell, le Tue 09 Jun 2015 11:41:01 +0200, a écrit :
> On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 11:11 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > So the package is actually doing something stupid (yes, that's what you
> > should have written in your mail to explain what is happening, actually
> > :) ). But it does work as root as specified by POSIX, so we have to
> > support it.
>
> Yes I think there is a package bug (it's up to the package maintainer to
> write good code, not me pointing fingers):
Well, the code is supposed to be run by root, so it's actually sorta
"correct" :)
> New patch attached. Maybe you want to remove the second condition to add
> S_IXUSR unconditionally for directories.
There is no point in testing for the flag before setting it, indeed.
You also need to fix the indentation.
> + if ((real_mode & S_IFDIR)
I don't think it's so simple, see the precise S_IFMT bit matter. That
should most probably be rather an S_ISDIR call.
Samuel
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c, Samuel Thibault, 2015/06/05
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c, Svante Signell, 2015/06/09
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c, Samuel Thibault, 2015/06/09
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c, Samuel Thibault, 2015/06/09
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c, Svante Signell, 2015/06/09
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c,
Samuel Thibault <=
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c, Svante Signell, 2015/06/09
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c, Samuel Thibault, 2015/06/09
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c, Svante Signell, 2015/06/09
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c, Svante Signell, 2015/06/10
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c, Svante Signell, 2015/06/10
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] trans/fakeroot.c, Samuel Thibault, 2015/06/16