Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:42:28 +1030 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/lib url.c Message-ID: <20070306231228.GC68567@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20070306204307.GD43608@rambler-co.ru> References: <200703061454.l26Esj7D043245@repoman.freebsd.org> <45EDA7E2.4040300@freebsd.org> <20070306204307.GD43608@rambler-co.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--hYooF8G/hrfVAmum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 at 23:43:07 +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:41:54AM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: >> Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >>> Modified files: >>> usr.sbin/pkg_install/lib url.c >>> Log: >>> Invoke tar(1) with the -p option when installing a package >>> from an URL (i.e., do it the same way as when installing >>> from a file). This fixes the lossage of the setuid bits. >>> It wasn't a problem before because GNU tar(1) implied the >>> -p option for root, but BSD tar(1) doesn't do that. >> >> Hmmm... This might actually be considered a bsdtar bug. >> I'll look into it. > > That behavior of BSD tar(1) surprised me, to be honest. I'm very much in favour of keeping the discrepancies (and surprises!) between gnutar and bsdtar to a minimum. Should we remove this one? Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers. --hYooF8G/hrfVAmum Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFF7fVcIubykFB6QiMRAoAZAKCFp+gIEtsBBQhWkzMWnPfEFD3UWQCeJYPu /vrI0Nhg4A3djV+8ps6HWdE= =VoLw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hYooF8G/hrfVAmum--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070306231228.GC68567>