Congratulations! One of the builds has completed. 🍾

You can install the built RPMs by following these steps:

• sudo yum install -y dnf-plugins-core on RHEL 8
• sudo dnf install -y dnf-plugins-core on Fedora
• dnf copr enable packit/sosreport-sos-3292
• And now you can install the packages.

Please note that the RPMs should be used only in a testing environment.

Forgot a trivial reproducer:

1. Ensure /etc/hosts has system's FQDN, e.g. add there:

echo $(ip a | grep -v "127.0.0.1/8" | grep -m1 "inet " | cut -d/ -f1 | awk '{ print $2 }') $(hostname -f) $(hostname -s) >> /etc/hosts

2. Run:

# sos report --clean -o networking --batch --build
..
Your sosreport build tree has been generated in:
     /var/tmp/sosreport-host4-8675309-2023-06-28-cxezxnp

3. Compare permissions:

# ll /etc/hosts /var/tmp/sosreport-host4-8675309-2023-06-28-cxezxnp/etc/hosts
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1134 Jun 12 08:37 /etc/hosts
-rw-------. 1 root root  798 Jun 28 16:49 /var/tmp/sosreport-host4-8675309-2023-06-28-cxezxnp/etc/hosts
#

See the missing go+r flags.

Should we add a test to ensure the permissions match on a given file (like /etc/hosts or /etc/hostname)?

I was thinking about it, but thought "would that test be usefull / why we would cause here a regression?" - but if also you have raised the concern about adding a test, I will add one (once I find proper assert method, probably comparing stat objects..?).

I added a test case, but it does pass even without the codechange; whenever sos is run within avocado, the collected (sanitised) file has proper permissions. I dont understand why..

Please decide about the test case in either way, I am off for a few weeks.