On 22 June 2017 at 14:42, jcbollinger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 5:26:41 AM UTC-5, Robert Inder wrote:
>
> I don't understand why the behavior you describe occurs, but I also don't
> understand why you are trying to set the owner of the link in the first
> place, especially if the directory containing it belongs to root.
>
I was creating a number of files, mostly in the user's own directory,
and I simply I used the same "pattern" for each of them...
>
>> If I change the manifest to not specify ownership of the link,
>> it creates a "swindon" link link owned by root.
>>
>
> So why not go with that?
>
Now that, thanks to Rob Nelson's suggestion (for which many thanks, Rob),
I realise that this will work, that is indeed the route I will go down.
Though there does still seem to be a bug in there somewhere...
> The link owner is relevant only to modifying or removing the link itself,
> and since you're managing it via Puppet, I don't see what purpose it serves
> to relax the permissions for that. The link owner and permissions have no
> relevance to *traversing* the link (see symlink(7)).
>
>
> John
>
>
--
Robert Inder, 0131 229 1052 / 07808 492
213
Interactive Information Ltd, 3, Lauriston Gardens, Edinburgh EH3 9HH
Registered in Scotland, Company no. SC 150689
Interactions speak louder than
words
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-users/CAKqjJm-vLb-%3D%2BGo4%2BbwNM13JOVipDf0nsoZnk3xmFsUbrs6q6Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
