pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] pcp updates - pmie, qa, non-root fallout

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp updates - pmie, qa, non-root fallout
From: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:37:49 +1100
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1074649813.49227675.1355440637912.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1074649813.49227675.1355440637912.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
Well ... I am assuming that the order of importance is ...

1. PCP works
2. non-root execution is goodness
3. lintian compliance

So I think there is no option other than finding a way to smack lintian.

I battled for 6 hours trying to figure out why qa/255 was failing, and I
would be very surprised to find an alternative solution that does not
involve making the mode for $PCP_LOG_DIR/pmcd more permissive.

If it is not 1777, then I suspect it could possibly be 755 and _owned_
by the user pcp ... I changed it by hand post-install to be thus and
pmcd starts (with a bunch of root owned log files therein) and qa/255
passes.  Would that be any less sucky for lintian and any of the other
packaging pixies?

I cannot test on fedora/suse/centos as I am still stuck there with the
python rpm packaging failures I mentioned on 26 Nov.

On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 18:17 -0500, Nathan Scott wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Changes committed to git://oss.sgi.com/kenj/pcp.git dev
> > ...
> > commit 41552a2fe0407f2cfeff34c59aa0b1a67f8ca652
> > Author: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date:   Fri Dec 14 06:07:14 2012 +1100
> > 
> >     Make $PCP_LOG_DIR/pmcd mode 1777
> >     
> >     Since the non-root pmcd changes, we can have log files for PMDAs
> >     created
> >     by either "root" or the user "pcp".  To allow a PMDA launched
> >     from pmcd's
> >     SIGHUP handling (PMDA install or restarting a failed PMDA) to be
> >     able to
> >     create their own log files, the mode of $PCP_LOG_DIR/pmcd has to
> >     be less
> >     restrictive ... mode 1777 follows the $PCP_TMP_DIR model.
> 
> This will make lintian complain once more.  I think we can override it,
> probably, but once we do we should consider whether making private temp
> dirs on Debian is worthwhile once more (since lintian was the reason we
> reverted that, and if we have to override it anyway...).
> 
> cheers.
> 
> --
> Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>