|Summary:||wrong permissions on /usr/include/NetworkManager|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Ben Liblit <liblit>|
|Component:||NetworkManager||Assignee:||Dan Williams <dcbw>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-04-20 15:03:38 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Ben Liblit 2006-10-23 04:00:54 UTC
Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): NetworkManager-devel-0.6.4-5.fc6 How reproducible: Consistently reproducible. Steps to Reproduce: 1. remove the NetworkManager-devel rpm 2. manually remove /usr/include/NetworkManager 3. reinstall the NetworkManager-devel rpm 4. as non-root, compile any C program that uses NetworkManager headers Actual results: Compilation fails due to insufficient permissions on /usr/include/NetworkManager directory. Expected results: Compilation should succeed. Directory containing NetworkManager's headers should be world readable and world executable. Additional info: NetworkManager-devel package does not claim to own /usr/include/NetworkManager directory. The directory is created at package install time, but with permissions that do not allow access by non-root users. Incidentally, this will also cause the directory to be left behind, empty, should NetworkManager-devel be uninstalled later.
Comment 1 Matthew Miller 2007-04-06 16:04:27 UTC
Fedora Core 5 and Fedora Core 6 are, as we're sure you've noticed, no longer test releases. We're cleaning up the bug database and making sure important bug reports filed against these test releases don't get lost. It would be helpful if you could test this issue with a released version of Fedora or with the latest development / test release. Thanks for your help and for your patience. [This is a bulk message for all open FC5/FC6 test release bugs. I'm adding myself to the CC list for each bug, so I'll see any comments you make after this and do my best to make sure every issue gets proper attention.]
Comment 2 Ben Liblit 2007-04-07 07:18:14 UTC
The current Fedora Core 6 package as of this date is NetworkManager-devel-0.6.4-5.fc6.i386.rpm. That package still does not claim ownership of /usr/include/NetworkManager, which means that the problems originally described still appear just as they did before.
Comment 3 Matthew Miller 2007-04-07 11:59:55 UTC
Comment 4 Bug Zapper 2008-04-04 04:03:46 UTC
Fedora apologizes that these issues have not been resolved yet. We're sorry it's taken so long for your bug to be properly triaged and acted on. We appreciate the time you took to report this issue and want to make sure no important bugs slip through the cracks. If you're currently running a version of Fedora Core between 1 and 6, please note that Fedora no longer maintains these releases. We strongly encourage you to upgrade to a current Fedora release. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained and closing them. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LifeCycle/EOL If this bug is still open against Fedora Core 1 through 6, thirty days from now, it will be closed 'WONTFIX'. If you can reporduce this bug in the latest Fedora version, please change to the respective version. If you are unable to do this, please add a comment to this bug requesting the change. Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. The process we are following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again. And if you'd like to join the bug triage team to help make things better, check out http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Comment 5 Ben Liblit 2008-04-19 03:48:37 UTC
Permissions on /usr/include/NetworkManager are correct when installing NetworkManager-devel-0.7.0-0.6.7.svn3235.fc8, which is the current Fedora 8 package. This bug should be resolved as fixed.
Comment 6 Dan Williams 2008-04-20 15:03:38 UTC