ash
> Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
> LSM: AppArmor: enabled
>
> Run the command:
> fakeroot fakechroot debootstrap --verbose --variant=fakechroot
> buster ${WORKSPACE}/buster
>
> Ends up with a lot of warnings
> dpkg: warning: ignoring pre-dependency
the command:
fakeroot fakechroot debootstrap --verbose --variant=fakechroot
buster ${WORKSPACE}/buster
Ends up with a lot of warnings
dpkg: warning: ignoring pre-dependency problem!
And fails finally with a lot of errors with this pattern
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 08:53:14AM +0200, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
Hi Osamu,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:10:57PM +0200, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
Hello,
I came across this building tutorial [1]. It advertises using
fakeroot
On 2/18/15, Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:10:57PM +0200, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
Hello,
I came across this building tutorial [1]. It advertises using
fakeroot debian/rules binary
command to build a package. Needless to say it doesn't work for all
packages.
I
Hi Osamu,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:10:57PM +0200, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
Hello,
I came across this building tutorial [1]. It advertises using
fakeroot debian/rules binary
command to build a package. Needless to say
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:10:57PM +0200, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
Hello,
I came across this building tutorial [1]. It advertises using
fakeroot debian/rules binary
command to build a package. Needless to say it doesn't work for all packages.
I find this tutorial confusing. I know of two other
Hello,
I came across this building tutorial [1]. It advertises using
fakeroot debian/rules binary
command to build a package. Needless to say it doesn't work for all packages.
I find this tutorial confusing. I know of two other IMHO better pages
on the topic [2] and [3].
Did I miss something
tools and ways to do the same thing. Still don't know all
the details.
--
Peter
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Eugene Zhukov jevgeni...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I came across this building tutorial [1]. It advertises using
fakeroot debian/rules binary
command to build a package. Needless
On a Squeeze, I'm trying debootstrap with variant fakeroot:
$ sudo debootstrap --arch=amd64 --variant=fakeroot squeeze
debootstrap-squeeze-amd64
E: unsupported variant
This is exactly bug 319100[1] (2005), which is tagged as fixed:
- the error is the same,
- the man page states
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Nicolas Bercher nberc...@yahoo.fr wrote:
On a Squeeze, I'm trying debootstrap with variant fakeroot:
$ sudo debootstrap --arch=amd64 --variant=fakeroot squeeze
debootstrap-squeeze-amd64
E: unsupported variant
This is exactly bug 319100[1] (2005), which
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:01:12 +0100, Nicolas Bercher wrote:
On a Squeeze, I'm trying debootstrap with variant fakeroot:
$ sudo debootstrap --arch=amd64 --variant=fakeroot squeeze
debootstrap-squeeze-amd64
E: unsupported variant
(...)
By reading the man page, shouldn't be --variant
On 19/03/2012 15:13, Camaleón wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:01:12 +0100, Nicolas Bercher wrote:
On a Squeeze, I'm trying debootstrap with variant fakeroot:
$ sudo debootstrap --arch=amd64 --variant=fakeroot squeeze
debootstrap-squeeze-amd64
E: unsupported variant
(...)
By reading
no lugar do fakeroot, p/ exemplo), o .deb é criado sem erros. Porém é
chato ter que usar permissão de root apenas para compilar programas, além
de ser potencialmente perigoso.
Alguém tem enfrentado problema semelhante?
--
Flávio M. Matsumoto
UFPR - ET - Departamento de Química
Caixa Postal 19050
The Debian package has been created in the current directory. You can
install the package as root (e.g. dpkg -i
sun-j2sdk1.5_1.5.0+update08_i386.deb).
Removing temporary directory: done
So, after the last step, if my
Mark Grieveson wrote:
The Debian package has been created in the current directory. You can
install the package as root (e.g. dpkg -i
sun-j2sdk1.5_1.5.0+update08_i386.deb).
Removing temporary directory: done
So,
To install the Java from Sun, I was following the steps given here:
http://www.debianhelp.co.uk/debianjava.htm
When I do the fakeroot command to make the deb package out of the java
bin file I had previously downloaded, I get this kind of output
komutu da calistirdim:
# apt-get install java-package fakeroot
bu durumda iken su komutu calistirdim:
$ fakeroot make-jpkg jre-1_5_0_06-linux-i586.bin
DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE=i386-linux fakeroot make-jpkg \
jre-1_5_0_06-linux-i586.bin
seklinde yaparsaniz normal calismasi lazim.
AMD64 platformu icin de
java-package fakeroot
bu durumda iken su komutu calistirdim:
$ fakeroot make-jpkg jre-1_5_0_06-linux-i586.bin
Creating temporary directory: /tmp/make-jpkg.BtOF6O
Loading plugins: blackdown-j2re.sh blackdown-j2sdk.sh common.sh
ibm-j2re.sh ibm-j2sdk.sh j2re.sh j2sdk.sh j2se.sh sun-j2re.sh sun
Wed Aug 17 09:33:35 UTC 2005 i686
GNU/Linux
$ ls -l jre-1_5_0_06-linux-i586.bin
-rwxr--r-- 1 emres emres 16769166 2006-01-02 14:45
jre-1_5_0_06-linux-i586.bin
Asagidaki komutu da calistirdim:
# apt-get install java-package fakeroot
bu durumda iken su komutu calistirdim:
$ fakeroot make-jpkg
merhaba,ben fakeroot ile ugrasmadim hic :)'root'./jre..[yes/no] yes bitti ...:)daha sonra da .../plugins/i386/'ns7'/libjava...bu dosyayi firefox ya da mozilla ya da konqueror plugins directorylerine symlink olusturursaniz java destegini saglamis olursunuz.
kolay gelsin.
Asagidaki komutu da calistirdim:
# apt-get install java-package fakeroot
bu durumda iken su komutu calistirdim:
$ fakeroot make-jpkg jre-1_5_0_06-linux-i586.bin
Creating temporary directory: /tmp/make-jpkg.BtOF6O
Loading plugins: blackdown-j2re.sh blackdown-j2sdk.sh common.sh
ibm-j2re.sh ibm
ne suis pas arriver modifier le fichier rules
correctement, j'ai toujours un message d'erreur. Enfin, finallement j'ai
laiss tomber et j'ai compil Php directement sans passer par fakeroot.
Je suis vraiment rest perplexe sur le fichier rules.
J'arrive un peu aprs la bagarre (beaucoup
Merci Beaucoup.
J'avais justement utilis l'option -d pour passer outre le problme.
Cependant je ne suis pas arriver modifier le fichier rules
correctement, j'ai toujours un message d'erreur. Enfin, finallement
j'ai laiss tomber et j'ai compil Php directement sans passer par
fakeroot. Je suis
j'ai
laissé tomber et j'ai compilé Php directement sans passer par fakeroot.
Je suis vraiment resté perplexe sur le fichier rules.
J'arrive un peu après la bagarre (beaucoup de travail, je rentre
juste). Le conflit ne devrait pas poser ce problème. Quel est le
message d'erreur exact? Ca peut
correctement, j'ai toujours un message d'erreur. Enfin, finallement j'ai
laissé tomber et j'ai compilé Php directement sans passer par fakeroot.
Je suis vraiment resté perplexe sur le fichier rules.
J'arrive un peu après la bagarre (beaucoup de travail, je rentre
juste). Le conflit ne
Bonjour à tous,
je cherche à compiler php4.4 en créant un package debian. J'ai donc
porcéder comme suit :
$ apt-get source php4
$ apt-get build-dep php4 (qui sort en erreur d'ailleurs)
$ cd php4...
$ vi debian/rules (je modififie la config)
$ fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage -b -uc
Cependant, la
, il est préférable de le
mettre en entier.
$ cd php4...
$ vi debian/rules (je modififie la config)
$ fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage -b -uc
Cependant, la compilation plante à cause de la gestion de apache et
apache2. Je n'arriv epas à le forcer de choisir soit l'un soit l'autre.
Je me doute que
* Frédéric Bothamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-15 00:16] :
[...]
Pas de chance, il semble y avoir un bogue sur le paquet php4
actuellement :
- php4 dépend pour sa construction de libdb4.2-dev
- php4 dépend pour sa construction de apache-dev
- apache-dev dépend de libdb4.3-dev
-
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:36:21 -0300, xWin2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
para que sirve el fakeroot?
man fakeroot
o si no lo tienes instalado
apt-cache show fakeroot
Saludos
Aritz Beraza [Rei]
--
Aritz Beraza Garayalde [Rei]
___
[ WWW ] http
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:43:37 -0300
Mario Nicolas Brandoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hola, estoy queriendo compilar el kernel, con el metodo debian, pero el
comando fakeroot no me anda,alguien sabe por q puede ser?
o sea no es q no me ande es como q no existe
Creo que necesitas instalarlo
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:43:37 -0300
Mario Nicolas Brandoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hola, estoy queriendo compilar el kernel, con el metodo debian, pero el
comando fakeroot no me anda,alguien sabe por q puede ser?
o sea no es q no me ande es como q no existe
Creo que necesitas instalarlo
onjour,
_J'avais vu que l'on pouvait interdire la mise à jour d'un paquet, mais
je ne sais plus comment on fait et je ne pense pas l'avoir fait pour le
paquet qui me pose problème..._
Depuis quelques temps, sur l'une de mes machines Debian, je n'arrive
plus à installer fakeroot :
$ apt
I just inadvertently built a kernel without fakeroot, specifically I
said
make-kpkg --append-to-version advncdfs --config xconfig kernel_image
I don't see any error messages, and the deb was built.
My kernel-pkg.conf includes the line
root_cmd := fakeroot
though I don't find fakeroot anywhere
Ross Boylan wrote:
I just inadvertently built a kernel without fakeroot, specifically I
said
make-kpkg --append-to-version advncdfs --config xconfig kernel_image
I don't see any error messages, and the deb was built.
My kernel-pkg.conf includes the line
root_cmd := fakeroot
though I don't find
Ross Boylan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just inadvertently built a kernel without fakeroot, specifically I
said
make-kpkg --append-to-version advncdfs --config xconfig kernel_image
I don't see any error messages, and the deb was built.
My kernel-pkg.conf includes the line
root_cmd
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 09:52:21PM -0500, David Z Maze wrote:
Ross Boylan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just inadvertently built a kernel without fakeroot, specifically I
said
make-kpkg --append-to-version advncdfs --config xconfig kernel_image
I don't see any error messages
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 07:00:12PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 09:52:21PM -0500, David Z Maze wrote:
Ross Boylan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just inadvertently built a kernel without fakeroot, specifically I
said
make-kpkg --append-to-version advncdfs --config
probably get to uploading a version
of lm-sensors on Monday that also plays nicely with this. A wishlist
bug on lm-sensors-source wouldn't be unreasonable, but it's on my list
for the weekend already. :-) You'll probably need to do an explicit
'fakeroot make-kpkg modules-image' in the mean time
Bonjour la liste,
Quelqu'un aurait-il une réponse à ce questionnement
métaphysique ?
Lorsqu'en simple utilisateur (faisant partie du groupe src), dans
usr/src/linux je fait un make-kpkg --rootcmd fakeroot
kernel-image tout se passe bien. Pareil pour kernel-headers et
kernel-doc.
Par contre, si
debuild et non pas faire un
fakeroot ma_commande. D'où une partie de ma confusion.
man fakeroot
[...]
EXAMPLES
Here is an example session with fakeroot. Notice that inside the fake
root environment file maniulation that requires root
privileges succeeds
d'avoir un chown qui ne renvoie pas
d'erreur mais n'est pas exécuté (but is not really happening).
Donc pour moi ce que fait fakeroot reste du chinois après avoir vu la
doc.
De plus il ne marche pas chez moi. bug 161307
--
Erwan
à ce niveau qu'intervient
fakeroot : la fonction appelée est interceptée par
/usr/lib/libfakeroot.so au lieu de passer directement au noyau. Du
point de vue de la commande chown, tout s'est passé correctement et
l'utilisateur a bien les permissions root nécessaires à
l'opération. Le whoami n'est là
fakeroot puisse le
gruger
whoami se comporte différemment parce que fakeroot redéfinit la
fonction getuid.
De plus je ne vois pas l'intérêt d'avoir un chown qui ne renvoie pas
d'erreur mais n'est pas exécuté (but is not really happening).
L'intérêt est de ne pas faire planter les scripts
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:39:15 +0200
Erwan David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
De plus il ne marche pas chez moi. bug 161307
Pas top comme bug, tu t'imagines que le mainteneur a une boule
de cristal pour deviner pourquoi ca marche pas chez toi ?
/usr/bin/fakeroot est un script bash, tu pourrais
/bin/fakeroot est un script bash, tu pourrais creuser un peu
par toi-même.
Au moins regardes si le fichier manquant est sur ton disque.
le fichier manquant est une lib installée par le paquet fakeroot, présente
sur mon disque à l'endroit où l'a mis le paquet. J'ai regardé le script,
je n'ai rien
Dans son message du 18/9/2002, Erwan David écrivait:
Pas top comme bug, tu t'imagines que le mainteneur a une boule
de cristal pour deviner pourquoi ca marche pas chez toi ?
/usr/bin/fakeroot est un script bash, tu pourrais creuser un peu
par toi-même.
Au moins regardes si le fichier
Le Wed 18/09/2002, Bruno Treguier disait
Dans son message du 18/9/2002, Erwan David écrivait:
Pas top comme bug, tu t'imagines que le mainteneur a une boule
de cristal pour deviner pourquoi ca marche pas chez toi ?
/usr/bin/fakeroot est un script bash, tu pourrais creuser un peu
par
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:11:12 +0200
Erwan David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Déjà il aurait fallu pouvoir penser qu'un truc comme ça puisse
être un shell script...
Comment tu crois que j'y ai pensé ? J'ai regardé (file /usr/bin/fakeroot)
Par contre j'ai *besoin* de mettre le LD_LIBRARY_PATH
eux
aussi avaient le même pb ? Je n'en ai pas vu de trace. As-tu tenté un
sh -x /usr/bin/fakeroot pour voir comment ça se passe ?
Déjà il aurait fallu pouvoir penser qu'un truc comme ça puisse
être un shell script...
Bien joué. Tu joues tellement bien les andouilles que j'ai failli ne
Le Wed 18/09/2002, Alain Tesio disait
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:11:12 +0200
Erwan David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Déjà il aurait fallu pouvoir penser qu'un truc comme ça puisse
être un shell script...
Comment tu crois que j'y ai pensé ? J'ai regardé (file /usr/bin/fakeroot)
J'y ai pensé
Le Wed 18/09/2002, Bruno Treguier disait
As-tu seulement essayé de poser la question à d'autres pour voir si eux
aussi avaient le même pb ? Je n'en ai pas vu de trace. As-tu tenté un
sh -x /usr/bin/fakeroot pour voir comment ça se passe ?
Déjà il aurait fallu pouvoir penser qu'un
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 03:40:53PM +0200, Erwan David wrote:
[fakeroot]
J'y ai pensé après. Le fait qu'on confie un truc aussi critique à un
shell script avec utilisation de LD_PRELOAD me dépasse...
Pourquoi? Pour faire des enrobages à des programmes
compliqués, les scripts sont plutôt adaptés
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:40:53 +0200
Erwan David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J'y ai pensé après. Le fait qu'on confie un truc aussi critique à un
shell script avec utilisation de LD_PRELOAD me dépasse...
D'abord je ne vois pas en quoi fakeroot est aussi critique, et ensuite
je trouve que c'est un
mettre et ceux qui sont
nécessaires à fakeroot, je vois pas ce que tu veux dire avec /etc/z*
Non, il y aura 1) les répertoires mis par les fichiers de conf système
(/etc/z* = /etc/zprofile, zlogin,zshenv,zshrc) 2)mes répertoires 3) les
répertoires ajoutés par fakeroot 3) mes répertoires
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:34:00 +0200
Erwan David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Non, il y aura 1) les répertoires mis par les fichiers de conf système
(/etc/z* = /etc/zprofile, zlogin,zshenv,zshrc) 2)mes répertoires 3) les
répertoires ajoutés par fakeroot 3) mes répertoires.
Il y aura ce qu'il y
Le Wed 18/09/2002, Alain Tesio disait
C'est pas un troll : c'est une réflexion désabusée sur l'évolution
générale de linux (nettement moins marquée dans la debian que dans
d'autres distribs, c'est vrai ; c'est pour ça que j'ai une debian et pas
une suse, mandrake ou redhat).
Tu devrais
On Sunday 09 June 2002 03:02 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach JW [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.06.09.2155 +0200]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-get install python2.2
try:
fakeroot apt-get install python2.2
Thanks, that works great with a little PATH modification, which I needed to
do anyway
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:31:51PM -0500, JW wrote:
I'm not the least bit supprised that lilo fails (in fact I'm rather glad it
fails :-D ), because lilo can't -- and shouldn't -- be run from the chroot
environment.
The question then is why is lilo being tweaked at all -- I haven't
Hi All
I am trying to build a .deb package using fakeroot from any *.tgz file. And I
kepe on getting :
fakeroot debian/rules binary
dh_testdir
make: dh_testdir: Command not found
make: *** [thread-stamp] Error 127
Any ideas
--
Theo Bierman
Customer Implementation Team
UUNET S.A., a WorldCom
On 09-Apr-2002 Theo Bierman wrote:
Hi All
I am trying to build a .deb package using fakeroot from any *.tgz file. And I
kepe on getting :
fakeroot debian/rules binary
dh_testdir
make: dh_testdir: Command not found
make: *** [thread-stamp] Error 127
Any ideas
quick hint, look
Sean Perry wrote:
On 09-Apr-2002 Theo Bierman wrote:
Hi All
I am trying to build a .deb package using fakeroot from any *.tgz
file. And I
kepe on getting :
fakeroot debian/rules binary
dh_testdir
make: dh_testdir: Command not found
make: *** [thread-stamp] Error 127
Any
Pessoal-
Estou precisando instalar o C.A.S. (Computer Algebraic System)
Maxima (GPL, feito em LISP) para as minhas tarefas de cálculo.
Ocorre que não há pacotes para a batata. Alguém me sugeriu que
eu fizesse um pacote com:
fakeroot apt-get -q -b source maxima
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:26:19 -0200 (BRST)
synthespian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fakeroot apt-get -q -b source maxima
tem isso no prático...
Sabe dizer como isto funcionaria?
baixa o fonte e compila com fakeroot, que é um servidor que finge
para os comandos que eles têm poderes de root
How do you do a fakeroot when you build a package from source?
$debian/rules binary
brian
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 11:05:20PM -0700, Brian Lavender wrote:
How do you do a fakeroot when you build a package from source?
$debian/rules binary
$fakeroot debian/rules binary
--
Harry Henry Gebel
West Dover Hundred, Delaware
GPG encrypted email gladly accepted. Key ID: B853FFFE
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:03:15PM -0500, will trillich wrote:
...
--
DEBIAN NEWBIE TIP #56 from Vineet Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:
Troubled by DOS-FORMAT OR MAC-FORMAT TEXT FILES? Here's another
way to deal with those troublesome ^M characters: a simple
tr -d '\015' dos.file
should
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 11:05:51PM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:34:19PM -0500, will trillich wrote:
...
hmm. maybe there's a scoring mechanism, coupled with a macro,
that you could cobble together to have mutt work that way?
hoped for someone to have done it
will trillich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* by the way -- speaking of filtering 'randomized' signatures
based on message content, is there any way to have mutt pipe a
quoted reply-to message through a script before sending it to the
editor?
There may be a specific way, but you could always
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 02:22:44PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
will trillich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* by the way -- speaking of filtering 'randomized' signatures
based on message content, is there any way to have mutt pipe a
quoted reply-to message through a script before sending it to
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 12:23:19AM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
rambling O how I mis tin's capability to hide/unhide read messages.
Under mutt I simply delete read messages instead of having them fade
away. \rambling
hmm. maybe there's a scoring mechanism, coupled with a macro,
that you could
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:34:19PM -0500, will trillich wrote:
...
hmm. maybe there's a scoring mechanism, coupled with a macro,
that you could cobble together to have mutt work that way?
hoped for someone to have done it for me:)
mutt's awful paarful, don' be dissin' my main mua!
...
--
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 03:03:35PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 11:35:05PM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
Don't know why debians package builder needs to be root, but given that
it suffices to fake root, fakeroot is the way to go:)
because if your not {fake}root all
Thanks to all who've helped me in recompiling my kernel. I used
kernel-package on one debian box and it worked fine. But now I'm about
to do it on another more important box and I'd like to know why I should
not do this as root, as I did on first box, and instead use fakeroot or
something
If you are using kernel-package you have to have root rights to compile it.
Using fakeroot lets you do it without being root kind of like sudo.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:40:34AM -0500, Ken Januski wrote:
Thanks to all who've helped me in recompiling my kernel. I used
kernel-package on one
Thanks Ray,
Let me rephrase the question. I've never used fakeroot or sudo but
realize that they allow root privileges without being root. What I'm
wondering, and I know this is very basic, is why it is better to do
whatever you're doing as a fake root rather than as the real root? Is it
a matter
, as I did on first box, and instead use fakeroot or
something similar.
I'm sure there are very good reasons. I'd just like an explanation of
the problems created by running it as root and the virtues of not doing
so. Thanks for your patience in answering a basic question.
root is inherently
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:59:47AM -0500, Ken Januski wrote:
Let me rephrase the question. I've never used fakeroot or sudo but
realize that they allow root privileges without being root. What I'm
wondering, and I know this is very basic, is why it is better to do
whatever you're doing
IMO and many will tell me I'm wrong. tools like sudo and fakeroot make sense on
a large system where you have to give more than one person root rights for some
things but do not want to give them this power for everything. On a system
where there is only one person who can do everything root
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:08:26AM -0600, ray p wrote:
IMO and many will tell me I'm wrong. tools like sudo and fakeroot make sense
on a large system where you have to give more than one person root rights for
some things but do not want to give them this power for everything. On a
system
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 06:04:01PM +0200, Joost Kooij wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:59:47AM -0500, Ken Januski wrote:
Let me rephrase the question. I've never used fakeroot or sudo but
realize that they allow root privileges without being root. What I'm
wondering, and I know
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 11:35:05PM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
Don't know why debians package builder needs to be root, but given that
it suffices to fake root, fakeroot is the way to go:)
because if your not {fake}root all files in that package will end up
getting installed with owners
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 06:04:01PM +0200, Joost Kooij wrote:
| need root priviledges even for that. But then there's still lilo that
| wants to write to random places on your disk. That is where the security
Random places? Sounds dangerous wink.
| aspect of it forces you to really be root.
On Saturday 02 June 2001 21:36, Harry Henry Gebel wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 05:55:35AM +0800, csj wrote:
With fakeroot 0.4.4-9.2, a build exits with
[stderr abridged and graciously spaced for clarity]
/usr/bin/perl: error while loading shared libraries:
libfakeroot.so.0
On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 05:55:35AM +0800, csj wrote:
With fakeroot 0.4.4-9.2, a build exits with
[stderr abridged and graciously spaced for clarity]
/usr/bin/perl: error while loading shared libraries:
libfakeroot.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or
directory
With fakeroot 0.4.4-9.2, a build exits with
[stderr abridged and graciously spaced for clarity]
/usr/bin/perl: error while loading shared libraries:
libfakeroot.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or
directory
dh_shlibdeps: command returned error code
make
No recuerdo bien, pero era en el paquete kernel-source o en la ayuda de
kernel-package.
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] con fecha 25/05/2001 03:14:05
Destinatarios: JUAN VICENTE/BANELCO/AR
CC: debian-user-spanish@lists.debian.org
Asunto: Re: sudo vs. fakeroot
Content-type: text
En realidad, estoy planeando abandonar al root una vez que termine de
configurar mi debian, y lei por ahí que se puede usar fakeroot para
ejecutar el apt, dpkg, instalar el kernel, y tareas de configuración.
Pues no es cierto. Si pudieras concretar lo de por ahí tal vez el
autor de dicha
Podría alguien explicarme la diferencia entre estos dos?
Hola !
Sudo es un programa setuid a root, es decir, se ejecuta como usuario root
(nada más arrancarlo), con lo que puede luego cambiar de usuario a otro del
sistema.
Fakeroot no es un programa setuid a root. Lo que hace fakeroot es cambiar
ciertas librerías de sistema para engañar, y que
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:36:26AM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Podría alguien explicarme la diferencia entre estos dos?
Bueno, teniendo en cuenta que nunca los he utilizado, te diré que sudo vale para
ejecutar un programa que necesita privilegios de root sin ser root, por ejemplo
cuando
En realidad, estoy planeando abandonar al root una vez que termine de
configurar mi debian, y lei por ahí que se puede usar fakeroot para
ejecutar el apt, dpkg, instalar el kernel, y tareas de configuración.
Lo que si sabía era que sudo, puede limitar los comandos a ser ejecutados
por los usuarios
pgpPFqMm660QW.pgp
Description: PGP message
92 matches
Mail list logo
