Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:31:58AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
[Someone wrote]
What was the reasoning for a serperate owner specification from BIN*?
Simple orthagonality. Ie, each bsd.*.mk file typically has a seperate
set of *{DIR/OWN/GRP/MODE} specs. bsd.inc.mk was cloned from another
bsd.*.mk file.
Well, I don't mind how it gets fixed, but it's very unorthogonal at
the moment having to set two sets of OWN/GRP variables in order to
make includes as non-root.
This shouldn't be a problem, because includes is an undocumented private
target in src/Makefile.inc1. Running it independently of buildworld
is usually wrong. You would have to set the two sets to run buildworld.
You would also have to set the other set that doesn't default to the BIN
set, i.e., the SHARE set. To set all the sets to different values, you
would also have to set the following sets:
KMOD, LIB (these mostly default to the BIN set)
DOC, INFO, MAN, NLS (these mostly default to the SHARE set)
There is a little too much orthogonality here.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 03:06:00PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 02:59:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: Shouldn't the includes/Makefile be installing headers using INCOWN/INCGRP instead of BINOWN/BINGRP? I ran into this when trying to do a 'make includes' as a normal user. Oops, hit send too soon; more changes are required of the same form. Before I go to the trouble of doing those, I might as well get confirmation whether this is the right thing to do. This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 03:06:00PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 02:59:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: Shouldn't the includes/Makefile be installing headers using INCOWN/INCGRP instead of BINOWN/BINGRP? I ran into this when trying to do a 'make includes' as a normal user. Oops, hit send too soon; more changes are required of the same form. Before I go to the trouble of doing those, I might as well get confirmation whether this is the right thing to do. This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile. And perhaps one should go read the commit message that introduced them... it was an experiment, a sample test designed to only be used in -current /usr/src/lib, that BDE, Sheldon and myself had long followon conversations about, and got dropped into the cracks. The name INC* is not clear as to be correct, per BDE it probably should be HDR* or HDRS* (I specifically avoided that since existing Makefiles used that, not knowing that BDE had seperately been eyeing HDRS* for what I ended up calling INC*.) Since, other commiters have ignored direct, and inderect requests not to propogate this INC* experiment, and it now infects all the way back to at least 3.x* and possibly 4.*, making it near impossible to clean up :-(. So feel free to ignore this email and change src/include/Makefile any way you wish... -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:22:33AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile. And perhaps one should go read the commit message that introduced them... it was an experiment, a sample test designed to only be used in -current /usr/src/lib, that BDE, Sheldon and myself had long followon conversations about, and got dropped into the cracks. What was the reasoning for a serperate owner specification from BIN*? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:26:11AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:22:33AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile. And perhaps one should go read the commit message that introduced them... it was an experiment, a sample test designed to only be used in -current /usr/src/lib, that BDE, Sheldon and myself had long followon conversations about, and got dropped into the cracks. What was the reasoning for a serperate owner specification from BIN*? Because headers are installed with NOBINMODE, not BINMODE :-) Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:31:58AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:22:33AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being
used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile.
And perhaps one should go read the commit message that introduced them...
it was an experiment, a sample test designed to only be used in -current
/usr/src/lib, that BDE, Sheldon and myself had long followon conversations
about, and got dropped into the cracks.
What was the reasoning for a serperate owner specification from BIN*?
Simple orthagonality. Ie, each bsd.*.mk file typically has a seperate
set of *{DIR/OWN/GRP/MODE} specs. bsd.inc.mk was cloned from another
bsd.*.mk file.
Well, I don't mind how it gets fixed, but it's very unorthogonal at
the moment having to set two sets of OWN/GRP variables in order to
make includes as non-root.
Someone tell me what they should be using and I'll fix it.
Kris
PGP signature
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:31:58AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:22:33AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being
used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile.
And perhaps one should go read the commit message that introduced them...
it was an experiment, a sample test designed to only be used in -current
/usr/src/lib, that BDE, Sheldon and myself had long followon conversations
about, and got dropped into the cracks.
What was the reasoning for a serperate owner specification from BIN*?
Simple orthagonality. Ie, each bsd.*.mk file typically has a seperate
set of *{DIR/OWN/GRP/MODE} specs. bsd.inc.mk was cloned from another
bsd.*.mk file.
Well, I don't mind how it gets fixed, but it's very unorthogonal at
the moment having to set two sets of OWN/GRP variables in order to
make includes as non-root.
Someone tell me what they should be using and I'll fix it.
Change bsd.own.mk to:
INCOWN?=${BINOWN}
INCGRP?=${BINGRP}
INCMODE?= ${NOBINMODE}
as a temporary hack until INC* and bsd.inc.mk is completed/gutted/replaced/
whatever.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
'make includes' ownership patch
Shouldn't the includes/Makefile be installing headers using
INCOWN/INCGRP instead of BINOWN/BINGRP? I ran into this when trying
to do a 'make includes' as a normal user.
Kris
Index: include/Makefile
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/include/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.142
diff -u -r1.142 Makefile
--- include/Makefile2001/05/26 11:57:29 1.142
+++ include/Makefile2001/05/26 21:57:34
@@ -78,15 +78,15 @@
beforeinstall: ${SHARED}
@rm -f ${DESTDIR}/usr/include/timepps.h
cd ${.CURDIR}; \
- ${INSTALL} -C -o ${BINOWN} -g ${BINGRP} -m 444 \
+ ${INSTALL} -C -o ${INCOWN} -g ${INCGRP} -m 444 \
${FILES} ${DESTDIR}/usr/include
cd ${.CURDIR}/arpa; \
- ${INSTALL} -C -o ${BINOWN} -g ${BINGRP} -m 444 \
+ ${INSTALL} -C -o ${INCOWN} -g ${INCGRP} -m 444 \
${ARPAFILES} ${DESTDIR}/usr/include/arpa
cd ${.CURDIR}/protocols; \
- ${INSTALL} -C -o ${BINOWN} -g ${BINGRP} -m 444 \
+ ${INSTALL} -C -o ${INCOWN} -g ${INCGRP} -m 444 \
${PROTOFILES} ${DESTDIR}/usr/include/protocols
- ${INSTALL} -C -o ${BINOWN} -g ${BINGRP} -m 444 \
+ ${INSTALL} -C -o ${INCOWN} -g ${INCGRP} -m 444 \
${.OBJDIR}/osreldate.h \
${DESTDIR}/usr/include
.for i in ${LFILES}
@@ -109,12 +109,12 @@
-p ${DESTDIR}/usr/include
.for i in ${LDIRS} ${LSUBDIRS}
cd ${.CURDIR}/../sys; \
- ${INSTALL} -C -o ${BINOWN} -g ${BINGRP} -m 444 $i/*.h \
+ ${INSTALL} -C -o ${INCOWN} -g ${INCGRP} -m 444 $i/*.h \
${DESTDIR}/usr/include/$i
.endfor
.if exists(${.CURDIR}/../sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/include)
cd ${.CURDIR}/../sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/include; \
- ${INSTALL} -C -o ${BINOWN} -g ${BINGRP} -m 444 *.h \
+ ${INSTALL} -C -o ${INCOWN} -g ${INCGRP} -m 444 *.h \
${DESTDIR}/usr/include/machine
.endif
.for i in ${SFILES}
PGP signature
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 02:59:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: Shouldn't the includes/Makefile be installing headers using INCOWN/INCGRP instead of BINOWN/BINGRP? I ran into this when trying to do a 'make includes' as a normal user. Oops, hit send too soon; more changes are required of the same form. Before I go to the trouble of doing those, I might as well get confirmation whether this is the right thing to do. Kris PGP signature
