From: Stuart Henderson Subject: Re: [PATCH] comms/hylafax To: Larry Moore Cc: OpenBSD Ports Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 13:47:34 +0100 On 2026/09/24 20:27, Larry Moore wrote: > > these are all going to be a total pain to deal with if upstream changes > > anything in the install targets. > > > > is it actually useful to change these from user=rw to user=r as you're > > doing? > > > > Simple approach, if the files will not be changing, they don't require > 'write' permission. agreed, but patching a bunch of lines in an upstream Makefile often results in a bunch of extra work to merge conflicts for any changes when the port is updated to a new version, and past experience shows that it's tedious error-prone work. > > for the files in /usr/local/{bin,sbin} which are owned by root:bin > > there's no issue with 755 anyway, that's very common in ports. > > > > > For the same reason as above. It's been decades since I had to hex-edit a > binary file just to change the default behaviour of a program - not the best > approach for an executable, and it was only on a once-off. it doesn't change anything practical though, the files are root-owned, and root can write to them anyway regardless of permissions. > Also, excluding write permissions on an executable does not impact package > upgrades. > > > for the files in /usr/local/libdata/hylafax which are owned by _hylafax, > > I don't think it's really helping to make them r instead of rw because > > the dir is writable anyway. > > > > As above. an alternative approach that would be simpler for updates would be to chmod in post-install. I'm not aware of other ports doing this though, and the vast majority of files in /usr/local/{bin,sbin} etc are mode 755 and owned by root.