archive/blender-buildbot
Archived
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 3 Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Wrong permissions in tar archive #93933

New Issue
Closed
opened 2021-12-10 10:14:00 +01:00 by Dmitry · 21 comments
Dmitry commented 2021-12-10 10:14:00 +01:00
Copy Link

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
Dmitry commented 2021-12-10 10:14:00 +01:00
Author
Copy Link

Added subscriber: @DimaM

Added subscriber: @DimaM
Richard Antalik commented 2021-12-10 22:20:58 +01:00
Copy Link

Added subscribers: @dr.sybren, @iss

Added subscribers: @dr.sybren, @iss
Richard Antalik commented 2021-12-10 22:20:58 +01:00
Copy Link

@dr.sybren can you check?

@dr.sybren can you check?
Richard Antalik commented 2021-12-10 22:28:21 +01:00
Copy Link

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)
Dmitry commented 2021-12-14 12:04:41 +01:00
Author
Copy Link

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.
Sybren A. Stüvel commented 2021-12-14 15:49:51 +01:00
Copy Link

Added subscriber: @lichtwerk

Added subscriber: @lichtwerk
Sybren A. Stüvel commented 2021-12-14 15:49:51 +01:00
Copy Link

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?
Ankit Meel commented 2021-12-14 15:53:03 +01:00
Copy Link

Added subscriber: @ankitm

Added subscriber: @ankitm
Ankit Meel commented 2021-12-14 15:53:03 +01:00
Copy Link

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)
Philipp Oeser commented 2021-12-15 09:43:21 +01:00
Copy Link

Added subscriber: @brecht

Added subscriber: @brecht
Philipp Oeser commented 2021-12-15 09:43:21 +01:00
Copy Link

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.
Brecht Van Lommel commented 2021-12-15 19:17:06 +01:00
Copy Link

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?
Philipp Oeser commented 2021-12-16 09:17:40 +01:00
Copy Link

Added subscribers: @Jeroen-Bakker, @dfelinto

Added subscribers: @Jeroen-Bakker, @dfelinto
Philipp Oeser commented 2021-12-16 09:17:40 +01:00
Copy Link

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
Dalai Felinto commented 2021-12-16 11:37:21 +01:00
Copy Link

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?
Philipp Oeser commented 2021-12-16 12:42:56 +01:00
Copy Link

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".
Philipp Oeser commented 2021-12-16 12:43:52 +01:00
Copy Link

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

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'
Dmitry commented 2022-03-12 21:03:24 +01:00
Author
Copy Link

2.93.8 and 2.83.19 are ok

2.93.8 and 2.83.19 are ok
Dmitry commented 2022-06-11 22:37:54 +02:00
Author
Copy Link

2.93.9 and 2.83.20 are ok too

2.93.9 and 2.83.20 are ok too
Dalai Felinto commented 2022-06-13 09:38:25 +02:00
Copy Link

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
Dalai Felinto commented 2022-06-13 09:38:25 +02:00
Copy Link

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 Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
Priority::Low
Priority::Normal
Priority::Unbreak Now!
Status::Archived
Status::Confirmed
Status::Duplicate
Status::Needs Information from Developers
Status::Needs Triage
Status::Resolved
Type::Bug
Type::Report
Type::To Do
legacy module
Development Management
legacy module
Platforms, Builds, Tests & Devices
legacy module
Python API
legacy module
Rendering & Cycles
legacy project
3.3
legacy project
Development Management
legacy project
Documentation
legacy project
Infrastructure: Blender Buildbot
legacy project
Infrastructure: Websites
legacy project
Platform: Windows
legacy project
Platform: macOS
legacy project
Platforms, Builds, Tests & Devices
legacy project
Python API
legacy project
Render & Cycles
No Label
Priority::Normal
Status::Resolved
Type::Report
legacy module
Platforms, Builds, Tests & Devices
legacy project
Infrastructure: Blender Buildbot
legacy project
Platforms, Builds, Tests & Devices
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
blender-admin
No Assignees Dalai Felinto
7 Participants
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: archive/blender-buildbot#93933
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?