[gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Jarry]

Hi,
I have just checked my machines and I found I have basically
two groups of settings ("ls -al" in /var/log/portage/elog/):

A)
drwxrws--- 2 portage root     4096 Jun 24 03:10 .
drwxr-xr-x 3 root    root     4096 Apr  7  2009 ..
-rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root    57760 Jun 22 15:11 summary.log

B)
drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 24 13:30 .
drwxrws--- 3 portage portage 4096 Nov  3  2011 ..
-rw-rw-r-- 1 portage portage 1132 Jun 22 17:28 summary.log

Not only "summary.log", but also /var/log/portage/ and
/var/log/portage/elog/ have quite different permissions.
I'm sure I never changed it manually, the only difference
is that "A" group has been installed 3 yers ago, while "B"
just recently (but both regulary updated).

So is the "B-version" correct one?

Jarry
-- 
_______________________________________________________________
This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists!
Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1469 bytes --]

On Sunday 24 Jun 2012 15:12:10 Jarry wrote:
> Hi,
> I have just checked my machines and I found I have basically
> two groups of settings ("ls -al" in /var/log/portage/elog/):
> 
> A)
> drwxrws--- 2 portage root     4096 Jun 24 03:10 .
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root    root     4096 Apr  7  2009 ..
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root    57760 Jun 22 15:11 summary.log
> 
> B)
> drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 24 13:30 .
> drwxrws--- 3 portage portage 4096 Nov  3  2011 ..
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage portage 1132 Jun 22 17:28 summary.log
> 
> Not only "summary.log", but also /var/log/portage/ and
> /var/log/portage/elog/ have quite different permissions.
> I'm sure I never changed it manually, the only difference
> is that "A" group has been installed 3 yers ago, while "B"
> just recently (but both regulary updated).
> 
> So is the "B-version" correct one?
> 
> Jarry

This was installed more than 2 years ago.  I can't recall if I tweaked 
ownerships.

# ls -la /var/log/portage/elog
total 132
drwxrws--- 2 portage root  4096 Jun 17 10:08 .
drwxr-xr-x 4 root    root 81920 Jun 24 16:00 ..
-rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root 17300 Jun 24 15:06 summary.log
-rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root  3695 May 27 08:48 summary.log-20120527.gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root  1346 Jun  3 07:40 summary.log-20120603.gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root  1045 Jun  5 23:32 summary.log-20120610.gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root  5713 Jun 16 08:07 summary.log-20120617
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Bryan Gardiner]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:12:10 +0200
Jarry <mr.jarry@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I have just checked my machines and I found I have basically
> two groups of settings ("ls -al" in /var/log/portage/elog/):
> 
> A)
> drwxrws--- 2 portage root     4096 Jun 24 03:10 .
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root    root     4096 Apr  7  2009 ..
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root    57760 Jun 22 15:11 summary.log
> 
> B)
> drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 24 13:30 .
> drwxrws--- 3 portage portage 4096 Nov  3  2011 ..
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage portage 1132 Jun 22 17:28 summary.log
> 
> Not only "summary.log", but also /var/log/portage/ and
> /var/log/portage/elog/ have quite different permissions.
> I'm sure I never changed it manually, the only difference
> is that "A" group has been installed 3 yers ago, while "B"
> just recently (but both regulary updated).
> 
> So is the "B-version" correct one?
> 
> Jarry

I installed one hardened amd64 system on Feb 25 and have these settings:

total 2160
drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 40960 Jun 24 00:31 .
drwxrws--- 3 portage portage  4096 Feb 15 21:29 ..
-rw-rw-r-- 1 portage portage   114 Apr 20 08:05 ::20120420-150555.log

Then another on Mar 29 and have these settings:

total 936
drwxrws--- 2 portage root    20480 Jun 24 03:01 .
drwxr-xr-x 3 root    root     4096 Mar 29 21:54 ..
-rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root      271 Mar 30 22:41 app-admin:logrotate-...

Unfortunately I can't think of any difference between when I set up
the two systems that would cause this.  At least, it's not a
consistent change.  For me, I at least want group=portage on
/var/log/portage/elog so my user in the portage group can read these.
The world permissions can go though :).

- Bryan

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Dale]

Jarry wrote:
> Hi,
> I have just checked my machines and I found I have basically
> two groups of settings ("ls -al" in /var/log/portage/elog/):
>
> A)
> drwxrws--- 2 portage root     4096 Jun 24 03:10 .
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root    root     4096 Apr  7  2009 ..
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root    57760 Jun 22 15:11 summary.log
>
> B)
> drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 24 13:30 .
> drwxrws--- 3 portage portage 4096 Nov  3  2011 ..
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage portage 1132 Jun 22 17:28 summary.log
>
> Not only "summary.log", but also /var/log/portage/ and
> /var/log/portage/elog/ have quite different permissions.
> I'm sure I never changed it manually, the only difference
> is that "A" group has been installed 3 yers ago, while "B"
> just recently (but both regulary updated).
>
> So is the "B-version" correct one?
>
> Jarry


This is my thinking on why it may be different for different folks. 
This first tho.  I run emerge as root.  I have not added my regular user
to the portage group.  I have no memory of messing with the permissions
either. 

I think that if you use a regular user to emerge some things, it gets
set to portage:portage or some mix of portage:root.  If you always run
emerge as root, then you get root:root.  It may be that this is only set
once or that it could be modified if you run as root then later on run
as a user. 

For the record, mine is set to root:root.  As mentioned above, I ALWAYS
run emerge as root. 

Any one have thoughts on this? 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1862 bytes --]

On Sunday 24 Jun 2012 19:27:36 Dale wrote:
> Jarry wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have just checked my machines and I found I have basically
> > two groups of settings ("ls -al" in /var/log/portage/elog/):
> > 
> > A)
> > drwxrws--- 2 portage root     4096 Jun 24 03:10 .
> > drwxr-xr-x 3 root    root     4096 Apr  7  2009 ..
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root    57760 Jun 22 15:11 summary.log
> > 
> > B)
> > drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 24 13:30 .
> > drwxrws--- 3 portage portage 4096 Nov  3  2011 ..
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage portage 1132 Jun 22 17:28 summary.log
> > 
> > Not only "summary.log", but also /var/log/portage/ and
> > /var/log/portage/elog/ have quite different permissions.
> > I'm sure I never changed it manually, the only difference
> > is that "A" group has been installed 3 yers ago, while "B"
> > just recently (but both regulary updated).
> > 
> > So is the "B-version" correct one?
> > 
> > Jarry
> 
> This is my thinking on why it may be different for different folks.
> This first tho.  I run emerge as root.  I have not added my regular user
> to the portage group.  I have no memory of messing with the permissions
> either.
> 
> I think that if you use a regular user to emerge some things, it gets
> set to portage:portage or some mix of portage:root.  If you always run
> emerge as root, then you get root:root.  It may be that this is only set
> once or that it could be modified if you run as root then later on run
> as a user.
> 
> For the record, mine is set to root:root.  As mentioned above, I ALWAYS
> run emerge as root.
> 
> Any one have thoughts on this?
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

I always run emerge as root.

elog is owned by portage:root, summary.log within it as portage:root, other 
log files within /var/log/portage are owned by portage:portage.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3831 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Dale]

Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 24 Jun 2012 19:27:36 Dale wrote:
>> Jarry wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I have just checked my machines and I found I have basically
>>> two groups of settings ("ls -al" in /var/log/portage/elog/):
>>>
>>> A)
>>> drwxrws--- 2 portage root     4096 Jun 24 03:10 .
>>> drwxr-xr-x 3 root    root     4096 Apr  7  2009 ..
>>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root    57760 Jun 22 15:11 summary.log
>>>
>>> B)
>>> drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 24 13:30 .
>>> drwxrws--- 3 portage portage 4096 Nov  3  2011 ..
>>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage portage 1132 Jun 22 17:28 summary.log
>>>
>>> Not only "summary.log", but also /var/log/portage/ and
>>> /var/log/portage/elog/ have quite different permissions.
>>> I'm sure I never changed it manually, the only difference
>>> is that "A" group has been installed 3 yers ago, while "B"
>>> just recently (but both regulary updated).
>>>
>>> So is the "B-version" correct one?
>>>
>>> Jarry
>> This is my thinking on why it may be different for different folks.
>> This first tho.  I run emerge as root.  I have not added my regular user
>> to the portage group.  I have no memory of messing with the permissions
>> either.
>>
>> I think that if you use a regular user to emerge some things, it gets
>> set to portage:portage or some mix of portage:root.  If you always run
>> emerge as root, then you get root:root.  It may be that this is only set
>> once or that it could be modified if you run as root then later on run
>> as a user.
>>
>> For the record, mine is set to root:root.  As mentioned above, I ALWAYS
>> run emerge as root.
>>
>> Any one have thoughts on this?
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
> I always run emerge as root.
>
> elog is owned by portage:root, summary.log within it as portage:root, other 
> log files within /var/log/portage are owned by portage:portage.

So those that allow users to run would have the same permissions as
everyone else.  Now I wonder why they vary from system to system then. 
It seems to me, they should be the same for everyone.  Just seems odd. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Bryan Gardiner]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:48:33 -0500
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mick wrote:
> > On Sunday 24 Jun 2012 19:27:36 Dale wrote:
> >> Jarry wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I have just checked my machines and I found I have basically
> >>> two groups of settings ("ls -al" in /var/log/portage/elog/):
> >>>
> >>> A)
> >>> drwxrws--- 2 portage root     4096 Jun 24 03:10 .
> >>> drwxr-xr-x 3 root    root     4096 Apr  7  2009 ..
> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root    57760 Jun 22 15:11 summary.log
> >>>
> >>> B)
> >>> drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 24 13:30 .
> >>> drwxrws--- 3 portage portage 4096 Nov  3  2011 ..
> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage portage 1132 Jun 22 17:28 summary.log
> >>>
> >>> Not only "summary.log", but also /var/log/portage/ and
> >>> /var/log/portage/elog/ have quite different permissions.
> >>> I'm sure I never changed it manually, the only difference
> >>> is that "A" group has been installed 3 yers ago, while "B"
> >>> just recently (but both regulary updated).
> >>>
> >>> So is the "B-version" correct one?
> >>>
> >>> Jarry
> >> This is my thinking on why it may be different for different folks.
> >> This first tho.  I run emerge as root.  I have not added my
> >> regular user to the portage group.  I have no memory of messing
> >> with the permissions either.
> >>
> >> I think that if you use a regular user to emerge some things, it
> >> gets set to portage:portage or some mix of portage:root.  If you
> >> always run emerge as root, then you get root:root.  It may be that
> >> this is only set once or that it could be modified if you run as
> >> root then later on run as a user.
> >>
> >> For the record, mine is set to root:root.  As mentioned above, I
> >> ALWAYS run emerge as root.
> >>
> >> Any one have thoughts on this?
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
> >> :-)  :-)
> > I always run emerge as root.
> >
> > elog is owned by portage:root, summary.log within it as
> > portage:root, other log files within /var/log/portage are owned by
> > portage:portage.
> 
> So those that allow users to run would have the same permissions as
> everyone else.  Now I wonder why they vary from system to system
> then. It seems to me, they should be the same for everyone.  Just
> seems odd. 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

I generally "emerge -p" as user then "emerge" as root.  For ownership
of /var/log/portage/elog, I tried changing my system with portage:root
to portage:portage and vice versa on the other system.  Something
during right the merge phase, right around when those elog messages
appear, resets the ownership back to what is was before I changed it
on both systems.  Odd indeed.

I thought perhaps some user flag in FEATURES would do this, but the
only difference between the two is buildpkg vs. buildsyspkg.  The only
user FEATURE enabled is userfetch.  Running portage-2.2.0_alpha112 on
both.

- Bryan

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Dale]

Bryan Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:48:33 -0500
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So those that allow users to run would have the same permissions as
> everyone else.  Now I wonder why they vary from system to system
> then. It seems to me, they should be the same for everyone.  Just
> seems odd. 
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
> I generally "emerge -p" as user then "emerge" as root.  For ownership
> of /var/log/portage/elog, I tried changing my system with portage:root
> to portage:portage and vice versa on the other system.  Something
> during right the merge phase, right around when those elog messages
> appear, resets the ownership back to what is was before I changed it
> on both systems.  Odd indeed.
>
> I thought perhaps some user flag in FEATURES would do this, but the
> only difference between the two is buildpkg vs. buildsyspkg.  The only
> user FEATURE enabled is userfetch.  Running portage-2.2.0_alpha112 on
> both.
>
> - Bryan
>
>
I always use the -a option.  If everything looks good, I can hit the "y"
key and let it go.  Doing it your way, it has to calculate the thing
twice.  If you have a fast rig, it may not matter much tho.

I used to use the -p option but I was glad to see the -a option.  I was
using my old AMD 2500+ single core system back then and it saved me a
LOT of time.  I guess the habit stuck when I built my new rig.  My new
rig is AMD 3.2Ghz with 4 cores and 16Gbs of ram with portages work
directory on tmpfs.  HUGE difference.  

It is odd that the permissions would vary.  It seems that it should be
the same, unless we actively do something to change them.  Just odd. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Tanstaafl]

On 2012-06-24 6:11 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> I always run emerge as root.

me three...

> elog is owned by portage:root, summary.log within it as portage:root, other
> log files within /var/log/portage are owned by portage:portage.

hmmm... I don't even have a 'summary.anything' file or files...

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Jarry]

On 24-Jun-12 20:27, Dale wrote:
>> I have just checked my machines and I found I have basically
>> two groups of settings ("ls -al" in /var/log/portage/elog/):
>>
>> A)
>> drwxrws--- 2 portage root     4096 Jun 24 03:10 .
>> drwxr-xr-x 3 root    root     4096 Apr  7  2009 ..
>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root    57760 Jun 22 15:11 summary.log
>>
>> B)
>> drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 24 13:30 .
>> drwxrws--- 3 portage portage 4096 Nov  3  2011 ..
>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage portage 1132 Jun 22 17:28 summary.log
>>
>> So is the "B-version" correct one?
>
> This is my thinking on why it may be different for different folks.
> This first tho.  I run emerge as root.  I have not added my regular user
> to the portage group.  I have no memory of messing with the permissions
> either.
>
> I think that if you use a regular user to emerge some things, it gets
> set to portage:portage or some mix of portage:root.  If you always run
> emerge as root, then you get root:root.  It may be that this is only set
> once or that it could be modified if you run as root then later on run
> as a user.

I always run emerge as root. But back to my question: on all
boxes with "A" access rights I can not rotage portage logs.
All I get is mail from my cron saying: "error setting owner
of /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log-20110803.gz: Operation
not permitted..."

On the other side, on boxes with "B" access rights (see above)
logs are rotated without problem. Logrotate-script is the same:

/var/log/portage/elog/summary.log {
     su portage portage
     missingok
     nocreate
     delaycompress }

So I suppose either there is something wrong with "A", or logrotate
script must be modified (although it works for "B")...

Jarry

-- 
_______________________________________________________________
This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists!
Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Michael Mol]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jarry <mr.jarry@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24-Jun-12 20:27, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> I have just checked my machines and I found I have basically
>>> two groups of settings ("ls -al" in /var/log/portage/elog/):
>>>
>>> A)
>>> drwxrws--- 2 portage root     4096 Jun 24 03:10 .
>>> drwxr-xr-x 3 root    root     4096 Apr  7  2009 ..
>>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage root    57760 Jun 22 15:11 summary.log
>>>
>>> B)
>>> drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 24 13:30 .
>>> drwxrws--- 3 portage portage 4096 Nov  3  2011 ..
>>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 portage portage 1132 Jun 22 17:28 summary.log
>>>
>>> So is the "B-version" correct one?
>>
>>
>> This is my thinking on why it may be different for different folks.
>> This first tho.  I run emerge as root.  I have not added my regular user
>> to the portage group.  I have no memory of messing with the permissions
>> either.
>>
>> I think that if you use a regular user to emerge some things, it gets
>> set to portage:portage or some mix of portage:root.  If you always run
>> emerge as root, then you get root:root.  It may be that this is only set
>> once or that it could be modified if you run as root then later on run
>> as a user.
>
>
> I always run emerge as root. But back to my question: on all
> boxes with "A" access rights I can not rotage portage logs.
> All I get is mail from my cron saying: "error setting owner
> of /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log-20110803.gz: Operation
> not permitted..."
>
> On the other side, on boxes with "B" access rights (see above)
> logs are rotated without problem. Logrotate-script is the same:
>
> /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log {
>    su portage portage
>    missingok
>    nocreate
>    delaycompress }
>
> So I suppose either there is something wrong with "A", or logrotate
> script must be modified (although it works for "B")...

For reference:

On my laptop:
ls -l /var/log/portage
total 4
drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Dec 29 18:45 elog


On a very-fresh-install of Gentoo:

ls -l /mnt/gentoo/var/log/portage/
total 4
drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 25 14:16 elog


It seems to me that the proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog are likely:
* chmod 0775
* chown portage.portage

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Bryan Gardiner]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:20:22 -0400
Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jarry <mr.jarry@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I always run emerge as root. But back to my question: on all
> > boxes with "A" access rights I can not rotage portage logs.
> > All I get is mail from my cron saying: "error setting owner
> > of /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log-20110803.gz: Operation
> > not permitted..."
> >
> > On the other side, on boxes with "B" access rights (see above)
> > logs are rotated without problem. Logrotate-script is the same:
> >
> > /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log {
> >    su portage portage
> >    missingok
> >    nocreate
> >    delaycompress }
> >
> > So I suppose either there is something wrong with "A", or logrotate
> > script must be modified (although it works for "B")...
> 
> For reference:
> 
> On my laptop:
> ls -l /var/log/portage
> total 4
> drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Dec 29 18:45 elog
> 
> 
> On a very-fresh-install of Gentoo:
> 
> ls -l /mnt/gentoo/var/log/portage/
> total 4
> drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 25 14:16 elog
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog
> are likely:
> * chmod 0775
> * chown portage.portage

Agreed that these are the correct permissions (setgid seems sensible
too).  Bug #374287 talks about this ownership a bit.  Also, when
/usr/lib/portage/pym/portage/elog/mod_save.py is invoked, it copies
the gid down to /var/log/portage/elog from /var/log/portage, so
mystery mostly solved...  But what accounts for the difference in
ownership of /var/log/portage?  :)

- Bryan

Re: [gentoo-user] Proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log?

[Bryan Gardiner]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:56:10 -0700
Bryan Gardiner <bog@khumba.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:20:22 -0400
> Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jarry <mr.jarry@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I always run emerge as root. But back to my question: on all
> > > boxes with "A" access rights I can not rotage portage logs.
> > > All I get is mail from my cron saying: "error setting owner
> > > of /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log-20110803.gz: Operation
> > > not permitted..."
> > >
> > > On the other side, on boxes with "B" access rights (see above)
> > > logs are rotated without problem. Logrotate-script is the same:
> > >
> > > /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log {
> > >    su portage portage
> > >    missingok
> > >    nocreate
> > >    delaycompress }
> > >
> > > So I suppose either there is something wrong with "A", or
> > > logrotate script must be modified (although it works for "B")...
> > 
> > For reference:
> > 
> > On my laptop:
> > ls -l /var/log/portage
> > total 4
> > drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Dec 29 18:45 elog
> > 
> > 
> > On a very-fresh-install of Gentoo:
> > 
> > ls -l /mnt/gentoo/var/log/portage/
> > total 4
> > drwxrwsr-x 2 portage portage 4096 Jun 25 14:16 elog
> > 
> > 
> > It seems to me that the proper permissions for /var/log/portage/elog
> > are likely:
> > * chmod 0775
> > * chown portage.portage
> 
> Agreed that these are the correct permissions (setgid seems sensible
> too).  Bug #374287 talks about this ownership a bit.  Also, when
> /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage/elog/mod_save.py is invoked, it copies
> the gid down to /var/log/portage/elog from /var/log/portage, so
> mystery mostly solved...  But what accounts for the difference in
> ownership of /var/log/portage?  :)
> 
> - Bryan
> 

Ahem, _initial_ ownership of /var/log/portage.  So at least, it's
possible to chgrp /var/log/portage and have the ownership stick.

- Bryan