Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in <20250917164611.JO87MYf4@steffen%sdaoden.eu>: ... |Fakeroot fails to chown but ignores the error, yet the failed |system call avoids getting the filestamp updated. Maybe fakeroot |should "simply" perform the task with the original user and group, |which are available, in order to make timestamp updates happen? ...
i asked clint(AT)debian thus If intercepted system calls try to chown() to the very user and group that fakeroot reported that a file has, and the stat cache gives a hot entry for the file thus, wouldn't it make sense to assume that "something like the above" is the desire of the programmer? "Faking" the operation in such a context does not appear overly grazy to me? What do you think? --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
