I like that better then trying to wrap do_install and such with special code.
It should be fairly easy to set the default for do_install and do_package then. I wonder if there would be a way to "notice" and flag as possible errors tasks running between do_install and do_package (in a single recipe) that may need the umask set as well. --Mark On 6/21/11 5:05 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 14:12 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: >> On 6/21/11 1:57 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: >>> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 11:43 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: >>>> Adjust the umask to 022. This resolves the problem of dynamically >>>> generated >>>> directories (mkdir -p) and specific files (touch foo) having odd >>>> permissions. >>>> >>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=mhatle/perms&id=d8470b6a8efdbba04cef5d4dc1ce12720fe83621 >>> >>> Are you confident that this isn't going to break anything like >>> group-shared DL_DIRs? I'm not entirely thrilled about forcing the umask >>> to 022 for everything that bitbake does, although I can see that making >>> it be so for particular tasks like do_install() might have some merit. >>> Even in the latter case, though, I wonder whether we should just be >>> paying more attention to recipe hygiene and using "install -m ..." with >>> the permissions that we actually want. >> >> This is why I bring this up.. I'm a bit concerned that doing it generally >> will >> have unintended consequences. So far I am not aware of any. Moving it to a >> different place in the process may be better. The only issue I've found so >> far >> is that just coding int into "do_install" really isn't an option. Between >> the >> custom do_install components, various classes, etc.. it's difficult in the >> current infrastructure to find a centralized location to set the value. >> >> (I'd love to be corrected if someone things of another way of doing it.) The >> setting of the umask is a very low cost operation, so doing it for certain >> steps >> shouldn't cause a performance penalty... but until we figure that out this is >> the best and easiest solution I've come up with. > > How about a umask flag for tasks? > > If bitbake sees it for a given task it would set the umask as indicated > for the task. Cheap and easy and would only impact do_install tasks... > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
