On 3/5/18 8:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 05:11:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: >>> On 2/28/18 2:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>>> That's basically a recursive chmod, so chmod_recursive is more adapted? >>>> I could imagine that this is useful as well for removing group >>>> permissions, so the new mode could be specified as an argument. >> >>> The required package (File::chmod::Recursive) for chmod_recursive is not >>> in use anywhere else and was not installed when I installed build >>> dependencies. > > Woah. I didn't even know that chmod_recursive existed and was part of a > module. What I commented about here was to rename to a more generic > name the routine you are implementing so as other tests could use it.
OK, that is pretty funny. I thought you were directing me to a Perl function I hadn't heard of (but did exist). >>> I'm not sure what the protocol for introducing a new Perl module is? I >>> couldn't find packages for the major OSes. Are we OK with using CPAN? >> >> I don't think that's cool. Anything that's not part of a standard Perl >> installation is a bit of a lift already, and if it's not packaged by >> major distros then it's really a problem for many people. (Yeah, they >> may know what CPAN is, but they might have local policy issues about >> installing directly from there.) > > Yes, that's not cool. I am not pushing in this direction. Sorry for > creating confusion with fuzzy wording. No worries, I'll just make it more generic as suggested. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
