Bug 74034

Summary: gnumeric doesn't own all directories that it should
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Enrico Scholz <rh-bugzilla>
Component: gnumericAssignee: Caolan McNamara <caolanm>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: chris.ricker, redhat, wtogami
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~ensc/dircheck/null/packages.html#gnumeric-1.0.9-2
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: FC3 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-06-25 09:35:52 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 79579, 100644, 115968    
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch to fix bug - haven't tested it entirely but, cmon - it's 1 dir none

Description Enrico Scholz 2002-09-13 20:33:21 UTC 
Description of Problem:

Because this package contains unowned directories, they will be created
with the current umask. When having restrictive administrator settings
(umask 077) ordinary user will not have access to them and can not use
the package.

Another problem occurs when removing the package because orphaned
directories will remaining.


| $ rpm -qf /usr/lib/gnumeric/1.0.9-bonobo/plugins /usr/lib/gnumeric/1.0.9-bonobo/plugins/applix
| file /usr/lib/gnumeric/1.0.9-bonobo/plugins is not owned by any package
| gnumeric-1.0.9-2

(Please visit the given URL for a complete list of affected directories)


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

gnumeric-1.0.9-2


How Reproducible: 100%


Steps to Reproduce:
0. make a minimal installation
1. umask 077
2. make sure that gnumeric is uninstalled completely
   (rm -rf /usr/lib/gnumeric/1.0.9-bonobo/plugins)
3. rpm -U gnumeric-1.0.9-2.i386.rpm
4. ls -l /usr/lib/gnumeric/1.0.9-bonobo/plugins
5. try to use the programs/scripts/libraries/data of the package as
   non-root user
6. rpm -e gnumeric-1.0.9-2


Actual Results:

* at 4:
  | drwx------    2 root     root         4096 Sep 13 21:49 /usr/lib/gnumeric/1.0.9-bonobo/plugins
* files can not be found/read at 5 and
* /usr/lib/gnumeric/1.0.9-bonobo/plugins still exists after 6.
Comment 1 Owen Taylor 2003-10-07 19:49:02 UTC 
*** Bug 103127 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Owen Taylor 2003-10-07 19:52:11 UTC 
Still present in 1.2.0-1
Comment 3 Seth Vidal 2003-11-06 07:45:48 UTC 
attaching 1 line patch.
Comment 4 Seth Vidal 2003-11-06 07:46:35 UTC 
Created attachment 95757 [details]
Patch to fix bug - haven't tested it entirely but, cmon - it's 1 dir
Comment 5 Miloslav Trmac 2004-03-01 09:32:08 UTC 
*** Bug 113046 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Enrico Scholz 2004-03-01 09:41:54 UTC 
It's more than one dir (/usr/share/mc + templates); see URL for list
(still valid with gnumeric-1.2.1-1)
Comment 7 W. Michael Petullo 2004-03-30 01:16:08 UTC 
/usr/lib/gnumeric/1.2.6-bonobo/plugins is not owned by gnumeric
1.2.6-3.1 so this bug is in Fedora Core 2 Test 2.
Comment 8 Warren Togami 2004-04-14 04:22:42 UTC 
I am going to checkin and rebuild this, but before I do can anyone
confirm this?

%files devel
%defattr (-, root, root)
%dir %{_datadir}/gnumeric
%dir %{_datadir}/gnumeric/%{gnumeric_version}
%{_datadir}/gnumeric/%{gnumeric_version}/idl/*.idl
%dir %{_libdir}/gnumeric
%dir %{_libdir}/gnumeric/%{gnumeric_version}

All of those directory ownerships are bogus, and -devel should instead
own %dir .../idl right?
Comment 9 Warren Togami 2004-04-14 05:50:09 UTC 
Please see if you can figure out why Bug #115968 is needed too.
Comment 10 W. Michael Petullo 2004-06-25 02:37:42 UTC 
This seems to be fixed in 1.2.12:

[root@imp gnumeric]# rpm -qf /usr/lib/gnumeric/1.2.12-bonobo/
gnumeric-1.2.12-1
[root@imp gnumeric]# rpm -qf /usr/lib/gnumeric/1.2.12-bonobo/plugins/
gnumeric-1.2.12-1

Can the original submitter verify this?
Comment 11 Caolan McNamara 2004-06-25 09:35:52 UTC 
Yeah, it should be fixed in that version alright, and I see the same
behaviour. In fact I'll close this, and if anyone reports to the
difference I'll reinvestigate