Wrong permissions in tar archive #93933

New Issue

Dmitry · 2021-12-10T10:14:00+01:00

Dmitry commented

2021-12-10 10:14:00 +01:00

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

Download Blender 2.93.4 and 2.93.5 for Linux.
List the archived files with tar -tvf <filename>.
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

Added subscriber: @DimaM

Richard Antalik commented

2021-12-10 22:20:58 +01:00

Added subscribers: @dr.sybren, @iss

Richard Antalik commented

2021-12-10 22:20:58 +01:00

@dr.sybren can you check?

Richard Antalik commented

2021-12-10 22:28:21 +01:00

I can't reproduce here with 2.93.7

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

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

Added subscriber: @lichtwerk

Sybren A. Stüvel commented

2021-12-14 15:49:51 +01:00

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

Added subscriber: @ankitm

Ankit Meel commented

2021-12-14 15:53:03 +01:00

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

Added subscriber: @brecht

Philipp Oeser commented

2021-12-15 09:43:21 +01:00

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

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

Added subscribers: @Jeroen-Bakker, @dfelinto

Philipp Oeser commented

2021-12-16 09:17:40 +01:00

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

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

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

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