starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-11 21:10:29 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Housekeeping script file mode is too restrictive #6036

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:35:56 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:35:56 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @abrahamvegh on GitHub (Feb 1, 2022).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

NetBox version

3.1.6

Python version

3.9

Steps to Reproduce

The mode (UNIX permissions) of the housekeeping script included with NetBox is 644. On Debian (I am running NetBox on Debian 11 'bullseye'), this mode is too restrictive, and run-parts does not run the housekeeping script.

Expected Behavior

The mode of the file included should enable the script to be run automatically, without needing to modify it.

Observed Behavior

In my installation, if I change the mode to 755, run-parts will execute it. I am currently manually doing this every time I update NetBox.

Originally created by @abrahamvegh on GitHub (Feb 1, 2022). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### NetBox version 3.1.6 ### Python version 3.9 ### Steps to Reproduce The mode (UNIX permissions) of the housekeeping script included with NetBox is `644`. On Debian (I am running NetBox on Debian 11 'bullseye'), this mode is too restrictive, and `run-parts` does not run the housekeeping script. ### Expected Behavior The mode of the file included should enable the script to be run automatically, without needing to modify it. ### Observed Behavior In my installation, if I change the mode to `755`, `run-parts` will execute it. I am currently manually doing this every time I update NetBox.
adam added the type: bugstatus: accepted labels 2025-12-29 19:35:56 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:35:56 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:35:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2022):

Thanks for taking the time to submit a bug report for this, which incidentally was more effort than the fix. 🙂

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2022): Thanks for taking the time to submit a bug report for this, which incidentally was more effort than the fix. :slightly_smiling_face:
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:35:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@abrahamvegh commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2022):

Thanks for I think the fastest resolution + fix I’ve ever seen on a major project issue, although it was admittedly quite a simple fix. 😅

@abrahamvegh commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2022): Thanks for I think the fastest resolution + fix I’ve ever seen on a major project issue, although it was admittedly quite a simple fix. 😅
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
beta
breaking change
complexity: high
complexity: low
complexity: medium
needs milestone
netbox
pending closure
plugin candidate
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 severity: high
severity: low
severity: medium
status: accepted
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: duplicate
status: needs owner
status: needs triage
status: revisions needed
status: under review
topic: GraphQL
topic: Internationalization
topic: OpenAPI
topic: UI/UX
topic: cabling
topic: event rules
topic: htmx navigation
topic: industrialization
topic: migrations
topic: plugins
topic: scripts
topic: templating
topic: testing
type: bug
type: deprecation
type: documentation
type: feature
type: housekeeping
type: translation
No Label status: accepted type: bug
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#6036
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?