Le mercredi 05 mai 2010 01:17:05, D. Scott Barninger a écrit :
> Ok that makes sense then. So with concurrence from Kern I will either issue
> a patched 5.0.2 or probably better we release 5.0.3.
For the sbin perm, the solution is to specify --sbin-perm=754 in the configure
command line to allow tools to read libraries. (you can specify 755 to allow
all users to execute bacula/bat/bconsole binaries, but it's not recommended)
For the library number, we've done some modifications in libbac, so it should
be 5.0.2. To avoid problem, users can switch off libtool, uninstall old files,
install them outside of the system libraries (as recommended) or for rpm, as
they have the same name, the upgrade process should just overwrite them.
The patch with a separate lib perm looks good and will be applied.
> Ps sorry for replying at top but I am on Blackberry.
> ------Original Message------
> From: Andreas Piesk
> To: Scott Barninger
> Cc: Josh Fisher
> Cc: Bacula-Devel
> Cc: Kern Sibbald
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-devel] [bacula 0001571]: libraries permissions
> are toorestrictive,breaksnotification by mail and running bat as
> unprivilegeduser Sent: May 4, 2010 6:58 PM
> D. Scott Barninger schrieb:
> > Hmm I buy that except for one question. Why did it happen now and not in
> > 5.0.1, 5.0.0 etc? We are still installing the same file with same
> > permissions. And why the reference to 5.0.1 libs in the error message?
> for the first part, look at these changes:
> 2010-02-01 Kern Sibbald Make configure.in changes recommended by Markus
> SBINPERM was changed from 0754 to 0750. unfortunately SBINPERM is used for
> libs too.
> for the second: as Martin Simmons pointed out, library versions are still
> at 5.0.1:
> #define LIBBACCFG_LT_CURRENT 5
> #define LIBBACCFG_LT_REVISION 0
> #define LIBBACCFG_LT_AGE 1
> libbaccfg.la: Makefile $(LIBBACCFG_LOBJS)
> @echo "Making $@ ..."
> $(LIBTOOL_LINK) $(CXX) $(DEFS) $(DEBUG) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@
> $(LIBBACCFG_LOBJS) -export-dynamic -rpath $(libdir) -release