On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Paul W. Frields wrote:
The introduction of non-persistent /run has apparently created an
issue where some RPM packages raise verification issues depending on
the umask present when a process from that package starts. The issue
is further explained in a tracking bug here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553916
Can not check that bug, as it is an internal one at least i have no
permission to read that.
While arguably not a showstopper for Fedora, it's certainly an
annoyance to have RPMs not verify post-installation when a packaged
service is started. This situation's also potentially harmful
downstream to RHEL. It means that customers who have to go through
audit processes for STIG[1] compliance will get dinged (even if
explainable) for this packaging issue.
Note that in the tracking bug above, there's a reference to a specific
example which was fixed appropriately for resource-agents:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462802
Would packaging folks agree that it's worth fixing files not using
tmpfiles.d (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d) to do
so?
+1
>
> * * *
> [1]
https://iase.disa.mil/stigs/Pages/index.aspx
>
> --
> Paul W. Frields
http://paul.frields.org/
> gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
>
http://redhat.com/ - - - -
http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
> The open source story continues to grow:
http://opensource.com
> _______________________________________________
> packaging mailing list -- packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org