From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2582 invoked by uid 1002); 18 Jun 2003 17:36:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 2565 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2003 17:36:37 -0000 To: gentoo-dev X-URL: X-Face: "d[&>8')a)wbF:+L#^<_cohnX6#m5RCCeKF/6_gD(iQ9bX?xe2~Aq*!')D(1ks`?YhomOYbL3R:{4e4a]qft_]<.q/Lf4hIr,`G+LX33&TYp}XGfe~^5m$28R"$C(EwnB\n8t Organization: Better-Com IT-Services GmbH From: Martin Lesser Date: 18 Jun 2003 19:36:34 +0200 Message-ID: <871xxrb84d.fsf@nb-acer.better-com.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [gentoo-dev] Policy violation possible (concerns openldap/nss_ldap) X-Archives-Salt: f62ad624-55f3-4678-9c5f-80ec93958b75 X-Archives-Hash: badbd6e1faca9ec55e06d0432dc29b89 Yesterday we upgraded net-libs/nss_ldap/nss_ldap-207.ebuild to net-libs/nss_ldap/nss_ldap-207-r1.ebuild and encountered an IMO fatal error concerning writing into /etc *without* respecting the protection of conf-files. The relevant lines from src_install() of the different ebuilds are: nss_ldap-202.ebuild: dosym /etc/openldap/ldap.conf /etc/ldap.conf (That's ok) nss_ldap-207.ebuild: insinto /etc/openldap doins ldap.conf dosym /etc/openldap/ldap.conf /etc/ldap.conf (That's ok) Until here /etc/ldap.conf was a symlink which was created or maintained also by at least one other package (openldap itself), but nss_ldap-207-r1.ebuild changed it totally: insinto /etc doins ldap.conf So the symlink was overwritten with the vanilla configuration what - in our case - caused several applications which depend on ldap to not work properly any longer. That was really bad. How can one prevent such an IMO unacceptable behavior of overwriting config-files which are symlinks? Should this be seen as bug in gentoo/emerge? Have the changes described above to be reported as bug in nss_ldap? How can we ensure the integrity of conf-files used by more than one package when different packages use different locations for the *same* configuration (a bad thing anyway)? Martin -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list