On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:48:56PM -0500, Rob Browning wrote:
> Stephen Gildea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The postinst script does several chown and chmod operations on
> > subdirectories of /usr/local/share/. If these fail, the script
> > fails (it runs with sh -e) and the package installation fails. This
> > is too severe, as the chown/chmod failure can be innocuous.
> >
> > I have my /usr/local/share mounted on a VFAT partition. The VFAT
> > file system doesn't have the concept of file owner or modes. The
> > Linux kernel reports all chown and chmod operations here as failing.
> >
> > But failing to do a chown or chmod of these directories is not
> > important enough to cause package installation to fail on any file
> > system.
>
> Before I'd be willing to change this, I'd need to hear from
> debian-policy that such a change would be acceptable. Current policy
> specifies both the "set -e" (6.1) and these specific permissions on
> /usr/local/ and its subdirectories (9.1.2):
For reference, here a snippet from the postinst:
if [ -d ${parentdir} ]
then
if mkdir ${parentdir}/${newdir} 2>/dev/null
then
chown root:staff ${parentdir}/${newdir}
chmod 2775 ${parentdir}/${newdir}
fi
fi
As far as I am concerned, I find it 100% correct. If the mkdir succeed
but the chown or chmod fail then something is wrong and should not be
silently ignored (see 6.1. Introduction to package maintainer scripts).
I would consider it a bug to ignore them.
Given the way /usr/local is integrated in Debian, storing it in a
filesystem that does not support chown and chmod will cause lot of
breakage and is not supported.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
