Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 59901
Permissions Problem During Configuration
Last modified: 2007-04-18 12:40:26 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) Description of problem: /dev/lp0 is root.daemon on 6.0, at least. LPRng is being built with lp as the user. Adding lp to the daemon group allows lp access to the lp0 device, but not within LPRng. It seems like LPRng doesn't pay attention to the user's supplemental groups. Of course, I don't know what I'm talking about here, but that's the superficial appearance ;) Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 3.7.4-28.src.rpm How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Build from .src.rpm on RH6.0, install the binary RPM 2. Run checkpc as root or attempt to start lpd Actual Results: lpd denied access to /dev/lp0. Ditto checkpc -f when run as root. It was necessary to chown root:lp /dev/lp0 This is not documented. Expected Results: no error Additional info: In addtion, there is a problem with permissions on the /var/spool/lpd . This was made worse by apsfilter, which sets 600 permissions in the subdirectories it creates. With root:lp owner, checkpc -f will not work even when run as root. It was necessary to chown -R lp:lp /var/spool/lpd to get things working. None of this is difficult once you understand it, but I wasted quite a few hours, which could have been avoided with an INSTALL.redhat explanation of the required permissions or by rpm setting necessary permissions during package installation.
Um.. we didn't ship LPRng with Red Hat Linux 6.0..
Your response is unsatisfactory. I'm well aware that LPRng is not part of 6.0 or 6.2. However, it is very common (and recommended on rpm-list) to add updated packages to earlier RH releases by building from the .src.rpm. There is no reason that RH shouldn't add a little documentation that would make it easier to do so. With the change I'm suggesting, LPRng works great with 6.0/6.2. Or do you just blow off the people who want to run earlier RH versions, like Microsoft does? I assume from your comment that the permissions in RH7.0 + for /dev/lp0 are root:lp and the install problem doesn't occur?
> I assume from your comment that the permissions in RH7.0 + for /dev/lp0 are > root:lp and the install problem doesn't occur? Correct.