On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:16:52 +0100, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 3:24 AM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/1/30, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > On Jan 30, 2008 1:22 AM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > We'll have to settle on a numbering for these required user/group ids >> > > > (which are not that much). Given that Resources/Requirements provide >> > > > include that id that would not be a problem. >> > > > >> > > We don't need the numbers. Just keep a list in Requirements over what >> > > files were owned by which user and run 'chown' after installation. >> > >> > That depends on what we want. The numbers helps us to keep recipes >> > simple, and it's already implemented.. :) >> > >> In what way is numbers more simple? If we use number we have to know >> that it correspond to the correct user in the target system. With >> names we can just grep for the appropriate number in >> /System/Settings/passwd > > Using numbers only, required_users[] and required_groups[] are enough > to make the program work. On the other hand, the second implementation > will require required_users[] / required_groups[] _plus_ a new list (a > la unmanaged_files[]) of files that need to be chown'd. That just > makes the recipe bigger. > What will happen if the number does not correspond to the required user? -- /Jonas Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
