topic title: [antiX Core M12] ownership in several root folders
Posts: 96
melodie
Joined: 15 Feb 2008
#1
Hi, in the folder /usr/local/bin the ownership of the files are almost all"1000 users" : is that normal ?

Code: Select all

# pwd
/usr/local/bin
# ls -l
total 900
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 users   7804 Jul 12 08:43 antixsnapshot
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 users   1513 Jun 19  2009 burniso
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root    5362 Nov 15  2011 change-default-desktop
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root    2073 Dec 31  2011 change-display-manager
-rwxr-x--x 1 1000 users   8869 Aug  6 17:28 cli-installer
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 users    723 Sep  8  2011 du-excludes
-rwx---r-x 1 1000 users  45621 Apr  3  2011 exoodles
.......
........
Another question, in the parent directories it is not rare to see ownership to"root:staff" is there a special reason for that ?

And a last one, not related but I am not sure I'll open a new topic just for this one : why is there a directory having for name"/sda1" under the / of my antiX Core vbox install ?

Thanks for your help!
Posts: 96
melodie
Joined: 15 Feb 2008
#2
Hi,

I am back about the directory /usr/sbin now, because while searching for"minstall" I unexpectedly found a bunch of files in there also belong to 1000:users instead of belongling to root:root.

It looks like the packager has forgotten to apply the right ownership to the files before packaging.

Here are the files:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 users 73 Feb 28 19:08 autologin
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 users 4042 Apr 21 2011 buildfstab
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 users 5450 Mar 25 2011 buildxconfig
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 users 870 Sep 26 2010 dev2uuid_fstab.sh
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 users 275656 Jul 17 18:08 minstall
-rwxrwxr-x 1 1000 users 2274 Dec 22 2011 scanpartitions
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 users 4992 Feb 25 2010 smxi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 users 30054 Apr 12 16:29 update-grub-antiX
all theses files are probably provided by antiX, as is"autologin" ?

Code: Select all

root@antiX1:/usr/sbin# dpkg -S autologin
desktop-defaults-core-antix: /usr/sbin/autologin

Code: Select all

# dpkg -l desktop-defaults-core-antix
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
|/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name                  Version         Architecture    Description
+++-=====================-===============-===============-================================================
ii  desktop-defaults-core 0.1.8.0         all             desktop defaults for antiX
With these two posts I have a question : which of these ownerships can I change to"root:root" ? The ones in /usr/sbin ? the ones in /usr/local/bin ? What about the ownership in /usr/local which belong to"staff" ?
Posts: 96
melodie
Joined: 15 Feb 2008
#3
Hi again,

Now one in /usr/bin :

Code: Select all

root@antiX1:/usr/bin# ls -l nicinfo 
-rwxr-xr-x 1 1000 users 2739 Mar 15 00:07 nicinfo
root@antiX1:/usr/bin#
(belongs to ceni)
Shouldn't these packages get a fix ?
Thanks.

PS: why is there an executable shell script under /usr/share ?

Code: Select all

root@antiX1:/usr/share# pwd
/usr/share
root@antiX1:/usr/share# ls -l pkg-config-crosswrapper 
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 219 May 15  2011 pkg-config-crosswrapper
root@antiX1:/usr/share# file pkg-config-crosswrapper 
pkg-config-crosswrapper: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable
root@antiX1:/usr/share#
Posts: 1,062
Dave
Joined: 20 Jan 2010
#4
I would say that all those files should be changed to root:root, as long as the global permission is set to execute as well. However the system appears to want the permissions root:staff as the rest of /usr/ is root:staff, so i would probably change the permissions to that.

I am thinking the reason for the permissions being odd is that the antix pacages were built by the first regular user on the system. When the files were copied to thier mirror location within the deb they would have been copied as regualar user and those permissions set. This is a good catch and i believe we should start packaging as root, or at least remember to change the permissions before packaging __{{emoticon}}__
anticapitalista
Posts: 5,956
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
#5
I agree with Dave and am repackaging the offending debs.
Posts: 96
melodie
Joined: 15 Feb 2008
#6
Hi,

I thought it was something like that. I have also met the case once with a Ubuntu program and package, I had written a mail to the packager and he fixed it. That had consequences in another distribution, so the sources tarball files ownerships needed to be fixed too.

I thank you both for your fast reaction !
Posts: 6
djohnston
Joined: 17 Aug 2012
#7
Dave wrote:I would say that all those files should be changed to root:root, as long as the global permission is set to execute as well. However the system appears to want the permissions root:staff as the rest of /usr/ is root:staff, so i would probably change the permissions to that.
Hey, Dave. I'm not sure how the directory ownerships are in Mepis, but I'm looking at a Debian wheezy install now. The /usr directory all belongs to root:root except for /usr/local.

Code: Select all

darrel@Deb-e17:~$ ls -l /usr
total 72
drwxr-xr-x   2 root root  36864 Aug 28 12:07 bin
drwxr-xr-x   2 root root   4096 May 21 08:50 games
drwxr-xr-x  35 root root   4096 Aug 19 16:20 include
drwxr-xr-x  88 root root  12288 Aug 28 12:07 lib
drwxrwsr-x  10 root staff  4096 Aug 14 02:43 local
drwxr-xr-x   2 root root   4096 Aug 28 08:37 sbin
drwxr-xr-x 158 root root   4096 Aug 28 12:07 share
drwxr-xr-x   4 root root   4096 Aug 23 20:07 src
darrel@Deb-e17:~$

Hope that helps. I gotta change these forum colors. __{{emoticon}}__
Posts: 96
melodie
Joined: 15 Feb 2008
#8
Hi,
djohnston, since I posted here anticapitalista has redone and uploaded new packages in order to fix the ownerships. I do suppose that it is all straight now.

/call me the debug girl. __{{emoticon}}__