Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

oci-image-tool unpack does not preserve permissions and ownership of entries #17

Open
philips opened this issue Sep 21, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Sep 21, 2016

From @glestaris on September 8, 2016 14:7

oci-image-tool does not chmod or chown the extracted files. I wonder if this is something intentional or PR-worthy.

Copied from original issue: opencontainers/image-spec#281

@philips
Copy link
Contributor Author

philips commented Sep 21, 2016

From @wking on September 8, 2016 15:57

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 07:07:39AM -0700, George Lestaris wrote:

oci-image-tool does not chmod or chown the extracted files. I
wonder if this is something intentional or PR-worthy.

I think this should be fixed. Unpacking semantics should probably be
just like tar, and from tar(1) 1:

--no-same-owner
Extract files as yourself (default for ordinary users).
--no-same-permissions
Apply the user's umask when extracting permissions from
the archive (default for ordinary users).

@philips
Copy link
Contributor Author

philips commented Sep 21, 2016

From @glestaris on September 9, 2016 15:15

Thanks @wking, this validates my impression.

I am happy to pick this up and make a PR @opencontainers/image-spec-maintainers.

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Sep 21, 2016

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:47:22PM -0700, Brandon Philips wrote:

From @glestaris on September 9, 2016 15:15

I am happy to pick this up and make a PR
@opencontainers/image-spec-maintainers.

This PR has been filed as #3, so we can close this issue.

@glestaris
Copy link
Contributor

Happy to close this. I kept it open until the PR gets accepted, but it does not matter that much :)

@glestaris
Copy link
Contributor

...and I just realised I can't close it since I don't own the issue anymore :)
@philips feel free to close this

@runcom
Copy link
Member

runcom commented Sep 26, 2016

@wking This issue should stay open as long as #3 isn't merged, #3 should instead have a "Close #17" so this get auto closed when merged.
If #17 doesn't end up merged we forgot about this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants