On Wed 25 Jul 2001, Adam Heath wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Paul Slootman wrote: > > On Wed 25 Jul 2001, Adam Heath wrote: > > > > > > What happens if the admin has set certain permissions on the device > > > files, and > > > you go and recreate them, thereby removing those permissions? > > > > > > So you say, that's easy to fix, I just won't recreate the devices if they > > > already exist. Well, what happens if I remove only some of the device > > > files > > > in a set? Will the missing ones get recreated? > > > > This sounds like a job for an extra flag on MAKEDEV, to only create > > devices that don't exist. > > But that's not what I said.
You said: : What happens if the admin has set certain permissions on the device files, and : you go and recreate them, thereby removing those permissions? That sounds pretty much like what I'm responding to. I'm implying that MAKEDEV would only create the device nodes that don't exist, and leave all others alone. > If I delete a few of the devices in a set, and your postinst just wants to > create the entire set, then your extra flag will not help. It wouldn't be *my* extra flag, it would be MAKEDEV's. It would tell MAKEDEV to only create any device node that don't exist. In other words, it would leave the permissions / whatever on existing device nodes alone. Your response to me suggests that you assume that despite the flag being passed, MAKEDEV would recreate any and all device nodes requested and modify existing device nodes to suit its default settings. > Here's what I think should happen: > > * The package asks to create the device files. > * Package calls MAKEDEV. > * MAKEDEV sees it's a devfs system, and either does nothing, or registers > perms appropriately with devfsd. Huh?!? You never mentioned devfs in the message I replied to. Paul Slootman please cc me, I'm not subscribed to d-policy
