The configured LOGFILE can not be modified.

fbartels

I have to disagree on the “known bug”. I see no problems with our packaging when deploying a fresh test system. I was therefore more searching for the “bug” in user behaviour ;-)

I see this on most installations and sometimes with upgrades.

Forgotten,
I fix this with the two lines mentioned above, so for me it is not longer an issue.

fbartels

This is btw the place where the packaging sets these permissions (for Debian based platforms): https://stash.z-hub.io/projects/ZP/repos/z-push/browse/build/deb/debian.z-push-config-apache.postinst#27-36,43-44

BMWfan

For me is the problem fixed, but nevertheless it was not functioning inbetween of the installation process.

mcdaniels

@WalterHof said in The configured LOGFILE can not be modified.:

chown www-data:www-data /var/lib/z-push /var/log/z-push

same for me : new installation -> Debian 9

fbartels

@mcdaniels Can you show which packages you have actually installed? (e.g. dpkg - l | grep z-push)

mcdaniels

@fbartels
sure:
z-push-backend-kopano 2.5.1+0-0
z-push-common 2.5.1+0-0
z-push-config-apache 2.5.1+0-0
z-push-ipc-sharedmemory 2.5.1+0-0
z-push-kopano 2.5.1+0-0

fbartels

@mcdaniels in that case you should not have had the need to chown the directory, as this action is part of the postinst action of z-push-config-apache.

mcdaniels

@fbartels: Strange, but the errormessage while installing via apt-get was the same as mentioned in this thread. Did the chown. It is working now.

thctlo

@fbartels That is a nice, but wrong example.

set_perms www-data www-data 700 /var/lib/z-push
set_perms www-data www-data 700 /var/log/z-push

should be

set_perms www-data adm 750 /var/lib/z-push
set_perms www-data adm 750 /var/log/z-push

Confirm debian policy. ;-)

install -d /var/lib/z-push -o www-data -g adm -m 750
install -d /var/log/z-push -o www-data -g adm -m 750

where user/group should be the variable to set to match the correct user/group per distro.

fbartels

@thctlo your version may include more Debianisms (the adm group), but in the end achieves the same. The www-data user needs read/write permissions.

So I would not say the current way is “wrong”.

thctlo

yes, i do, because the "administrative group " adm, should have read access.
which is/was in Red Hat : wheel
but i can not confirm it that is still.