On Thursday 08 February 2007 20:40, steve crosby wrote:
> On 2/9/07, LFS Trac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > #1951: gzip-1.3.11
> > ------------------------------------------+------------------------------
> >--- Reporter:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |        Owner: 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Type:  enhancement                   |      
> > Status:  assigned Priority:  normal                        |   
> > Milestone:  6.3
> > Component:  Book                          |      Version:  SVN
> >  Severity:  normal                        |   Resolution:
> >  Keywords:                                |
> > ------------------------------------------+------------------------------
> >--- Comment (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> >  Because of the change of some utilities from hardlinks to actual
> > binaries as detailed above, our instructions need to change:
>
> FYI: (would update trac ticket direct, but haven't the spare time to
> resiter username etc)
>
> The change to "actual binaries" are really just shell script wrappers
> - and they all add the following to the start of each script
>
>   PATH="${GZIP_BINDIR-'/usr/bin'}:$PATH"; export PATH
>
> and then call gzip with the appropriate command line options. since we
> pass prefix=/usr, the make install portion adds the /usr/bin, even
> though we then move gzip to /bin.
>
> Because /bin is likely to still be in the path this won't *break*
> anything, but should be fixed anyway, if only to prevent unexpected
> behaviour is someone places a malicious gzip in the /usr/bin directory
> - a sed on the Makefile perhaps?

Well, we can fine tune the installation of the files.  We could:

./configure --prefix='' --datarootdir=/usr/share
make
make check
make install
mv -v /bin/{gzexe,zcmp,zdiff,zegrep,zfgrep,zforce,zgrep,zless,zmore,znew} 
/usr/bin

That installs gzip, gunzip and zcat in /bin, the other binaries in /usr/bin 
and all the docs in /usr/share.  It also results in the following headers in 
the shell script wrappers:

PATH="${GZIP_BINDIR-'/bin'}:$PATH"; export PATH

I personally think that's much cleaner than `sed'ing makefiles and the like.  
What do you think?

Matt.
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to