rpmbuild packaging question

[mackendw]

Hi:

Have an rpm I'm building for an application. The application's makefile has an install target. Inside
it issues a set permissions block that changes some of the executables within the package as root.root
for owner and group and sets a couple of them as setuid.

Given the cardinal rule of not building the package rpm's as root, this block will fail during the %install in the spec.

I've worked around this by passing an option from the make issued in the %install section to the Makefile which gets pushed down to this script and determine if the make install is being done by root or the package creator. If the package creator, don't attempt to set owner/group to root.root.

Is this the usual method?

thx.
W. MacKenzie

[ocratato]

I've never built a package, but I will need to at the end of my current project, so I had a bit of a look.

Would the %attr macro solve the problem ?
link to doc

[mackendw]

I have the %attr directives for the packaged files.

The source rpm (if/when installed) has an install tag inside which does permissions settings if they chose to install the rpm later and do a make install.

What I'm doing in the package build is not doing the chown / chgrp commands to root as I'm not root during the package build.

The package installs fine and the ownership is being done as correctly.

Originally Posted by mackendw

I have the %attr directives for the packaged files.

The source rpm (if/when installed) has an install tag inside which does permissions settings if they chose to install the rpm later and do a make install.

What I'm doing in the package build is not doing the chown / chgrp commands to root as I'm not root during the package build.

The package installs fine and the ownership is being done as correctly.

%attr is obsolete

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packa...le_Permissions