Wrong permissions in tar archive #93933

Closed
opened 2021-12-10 10:14:00 +01:00 by Dmitry · 21 comments

System Information
Operating system: Ubuntu 20.04
Graphics card: RX 480

Blender Version
Broken: 2.93.5
Worked: 2.93.4

Short description of error
All the files in tar.xz archive has drwx------ or -rw------- permissions since version 2.93.5. Previously the permissions were drwxr-xr-x or -rw-r--r--.

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error

  1. Download Blender 2.93.4 and 2.93.5 for Linux.
  2. List the archived files with tar -tvf <filename>.
  3. At least the permissions differs
**System Information** Operating system: Ubuntu 20.04 Graphics card: RX 480 **Blender Version** Broken: 2.93.5 Worked: 2.93.4 **Short description of error** All the files in tar.xz archive has drwx------ or -rw------- permissions since version 2.93.5. Previously the permissions were drwxr-xr-x or -rw-r--r--. **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** 1) Download Blender 2.93.4 and 2.93.5 for Linux. 2) List the archived files with ` tar -tvf <filename> `. 3) At least the permissions differs
Author

Added subscriber: @DimaM

Added subscriber: @DimaM

Added subscribers: @dr.sybren, @iss

Added subscribers: @dr.sybren, @iss

@dr.sybren can you check?

@dr.sybren can you check?

I can't reproduce here with 2.93.7

Untitled.png

I can't reproduce here with 2.93.7 ![Untitled.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F12728377/Untitled.png)
Author

The latest release candidate of Blender 2.93.6 has right permissions too. But the 2.93.6 release has wrong permissions. Blender 3.0 release is ok.
Blender 2.83.18 has this issue too.
It seems like files from this page [https:*builder.blender.org/download/daily/archive/ ]] are ok, even stable versions. But from this https:*www.blender.org/download/lts/2-83/ and this [ https:*www.blender.org/download/lts/2-93/ | https:*www.blender.org/download/lts/2-93/ pages are not ok.

The latest release candidate of Blender 2.93.6 has right permissions too. But the 2.93.6 release has wrong permissions. Blender 3.0 release is ok. Blender 2.83.18 has this issue too. It seems like files from this page [https:*builder.blender.org/download/daily/archive/ ]] are ok, even stable versions. But from this [[ https:*www.blender.org/download/lts/2-83/ | https:*www.blender.org/download/lts/2-83/ ]] and this [[ https:*www.blender.org/download/lts/2-93/ | https:*www.blender.org/download/lts/2-93/ ](https:*builder.blender.org/download/daily/archive/) pages are not ok.

Added subscriber: @lichtwerk

Added subscriber: @lichtwerk

This looks like an issue with the LTS build pipeline. Maybe @lichtwerk can shed some light on this?

This looks like an issue with the LTS build pipeline. Maybe @lichtwerk can shed some light on this?

Added subscriber: @ankitm

Added subscriber: @ankitm

similar but for macOS and different release versions blender/blender#93236 (3.0 mac: non admin users can't run blender)

similar but for macOS and different release versions blender/blender#93236 (3.0 mac: non admin users can't run blender)

Added subscriber: @brecht

Added subscriber: @brecht

In #93933#1272288, @dr.sybren wrote:
This looks like an issue with the LTS build pipeline. Maybe @lichtwerk can shed some light on this?

Afaict, this is out of my reach, I think @brecht needs to jump in.

> In #93933#1272288, @dr.sybren wrote: > This looks like an issue with the LTS build pipeline. Maybe @lichtwerk can shed some light on this? Afaict, this is out of my reach, I think @brecht needs to jump in.

I fixed the umask now for the Linux buildbot workers, so the next time using the deploy builder it should work.

The reason the Blender 3.0 release is ok is because I happened to run the script for that manually, and the umask problem only happens for the buildbot worker daemons.

Not sure what the policy is for re-deploying a release, I guess we should not because the hashes change?

I fixed the umask now for the Linux buildbot workers, so the next time using the deploy builder it should work. The reason the Blender 3.0 release is ok is because I happened to run the script for that manually, and the umask problem only happens for the buildbot worker daemons. Not sure what the policy is for re-deploying a release, I guess we should not because the hashes change?

Added subscribers: @Jeroen-Bakker, @dfelinto

Added subscribers: @Jeroen-Bakker, @dfelinto

In #93933#1273278, @brecht wrote:
I fixed the umask now for the Linux buildbot workers, so the next time using the deploy builder it should work.

Thx!

...the umask problem only happens for the buildbot worker daemons.

Has this always been the case for previous releases?
(just asking because I cant really tell how many people are affected, if this might be a "known thing" and people usually know their way around -- to get an idea how "severe" this really is, see below)

Not sure what the policy is for re-deploying a release, I guess we should not because the hashes change?

Also not sure, would also summon @Jeroen-Bakker, @dfelinto reg. how "severe" this really is, see above

> In #93933#1273278, @brecht wrote: > I fixed the umask now for the Linux buildbot workers, so the next time using the deploy builder it should work. Thx! > ...the umask problem only happens for the buildbot worker daemons. Has this always been the case for previous releases? (just asking because I cant really tell how many people are affected, if this might be a "known thing" and people usually know their way around -- to get an idea how "severe" this really is, see below) > Not sure what the policy is for re-deploying a release, I guess we should not because the hashes change? Also not sure, would also summon @Jeroen-Bakker, @dfelinto reg. how "severe" this really is, see above

Just to be clear, are 2.93.7 and 3.0 ok on Linux? How about the latest 2.83?

Just to be clear, are 2.93.7 and 3.0 ok on Linux? How about the latest 2.83?

In #93933#1273719, @dfelinto wrote:
Just to be clear, are 2.93.7 and 3.0 ok on Linux? How about the latest 2.83?

3.0 is OK (as @brecht said, this was done manually).
2.93.7 & 2.83.18 are "affected".

> In #93933#1273719, @dfelinto wrote: > Just to be clear, are 2.93.7 and 3.0 ok on Linux? How about the latest 2.83? 3.0 is OK (as @brecht said, this was done manually). 2.93.7 & 2.83.18 are "affected".

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'
Author

2.93.8 and 2.83.19 are ok

2.93.8 and 2.83.19 are ok
Author

2.93.9 and 2.83.20 are ok too

2.93.9 and 2.83.20 are ok too

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Resolved'

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Resolved'
Dalai Felinto self-assigned this 2022-06-13 09:38:25 +02:00

The building machinery is now fully working then. Thanks for the reporting.

The building machinery is now fully working then. Thanks for the reporting.
This repo is archived. You cannot comment on issues.
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
7 Participants
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: archive/blender-buildbot#93933
No description provided.