Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
On Sunday 22 May 2005 10:49, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten wrote:
Hi,
ok another problem for Gentoo/FreeBSD project :P
Currently there are a few places where, to fix permissions of files,
the ebuilds does a chown -R root:root ${D} or something similar.
Unfortunately such a command is invalid on G/FBSD because there's no
root group, instead wheel group has GID=0.
So I was wondering for a solution for this problem: we have a $USERLAND
variable which can be used to select the way the chown must be done, if
chown root:root or chown root:wheel; I think both BSD and Darwin
userland prefers root:wheel above root:root, so maybe adding a function
in eutils which fixes the permissions based on the current $USERLAND
value is enough...
Comments?
Why not change the stuff to
chown -R 0:0 ${D}
That way it is user proof. The master accounts allways have id's 0:0 but
user's might decide to change their names.
Paul
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpVZxaKB1YbU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
On Sunday 22 May 2005 11:09, Stuart Longland wrote:
Why not just use `chmod -R 0:0 ${D}`? That should have the desired effect?
Yes that will have so that should be good for all systems. For me that is
ok... nobody disagrees?
If it's ok... Mike commit the eclass so that sys-devel/gcc will works (quite)
out of the box :)
--
Diego Flameeyes Petten
Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64)
http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
pgpp7GSeUDtU6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 04:26 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Sunday 22 May 2005 11:09, Stuart Longland wrote:
Why not just use `chmod -R 0:0 ${D}`? That should have the desired
effect?
Yes that will have so that should be good for all systems. For me that is
ok... nobody disagrees?
only other idea i'd consider is having portage scan $D before each merge
looking for files owned by group portage ? or perhaps making an eutils func
for people to invoke ...
but this is probably just as much cruft as the get_root_group() idea ... i
imagine if someone comes up with a reason down the road why using gid 0 is a
bad idea, they'll let us know and we can review this again
Diego: feel free to commit the wheel - 0 group change
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: [Sun May 22 2005, 03:49:39AM CDT] So I was wondering for a solution for this problem: we have a $USERLAND variable which can be used to select the way the chown must be done, if chown root:root or chown root:wheel; I think both BSD and Darwin userland prefers root:wheel above root:root, so maybe adding a function in eutils which fixes the permissions based on the current $USERLAND value is enough... Of course, this issue is precisely what GLEP 27 was created to handle. The portage devs have let us know that xml is a problem, but otherwise this GLEP appears sound, and I believe that the portage team has something along these lines as part of their long-range plans. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgp7lbbRBiQgF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
On Monday 23 May 2005 12:23 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote: Of course, this issue is precisely what GLEP 27 was created to handle. The portage devs have let us know that xml is a problem i thought i talked to them about your tweaks to use flat text files ... i'll have to check again i guess ... -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
Hi,
ok another problem for Gentoo/FreeBSD project :P
Currently there are a few places where, to fix permissions of files, the
ebuilds does a chown -R root:root ${D} or something similar.
Unfortunately such a command is invalid on G/FBSD because there's no root
group, instead wheel group has GID=0.
So I was wondering for a solution for this problem: we have a $USERLAND
variable which can be used to select the way the chown must be done, if chown
root:root or chown root:wheel; I think both BSD and Darwin userland prefers
root:wheel above root:root, so maybe adding a function in eutils which fixes
the permissions based on the current $USERLAND value is enough...
Comments?
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò
Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64)
http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
pgpfSXFApmJs4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:49:39 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| So I was wondering for a solution for this problem: we have a
| $USERLAND variable which can be used to select the way the chown must
| be done, if chown root:root or chown root:wheel; I think both BSD and
| Darwin userland prefers root:wheel above root:root, so maybe adding a
| function in eutils which fixes the permissions based on the current
| $USERLAND value is enough...
get_root_group() {
if use userland_bsd ; then
echo wheel
else
echo root
fi
}
maybe?
The other option is to do a sneaky chown wrapper that automatically
detects that kind of thing. I'm against that on general principle
because it'll break too often.
I'll unofficial-document whatever's decided upon, anyway.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
pgpxAPhfNDjz6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Hi,
ok another problem for Gentoo/FreeBSD project :P
Currently there are a few places where, to fix permissions of files, the
ebuilds does a chown -R root:root ${D} or something similar.
Unfortunately such a command is invalid on G/FBSD because there's no root
group, instead wheel group has GID=0.
Why not just use `chmod -R 0:0 ${D}`? That should have the desired effect?
--
+-+
| Stuart Longland -oOo- http://stuartl.longlandclan.hopto.org |
| Atomic Linux Project -oOo-http://atomicl.berlios.de |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
| I haven't lost my mind - it's backed up on a tape somewhere |
+-+
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
On Sunday 22 May 2005 11:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
get_root_group() {
That should do, so in ebuilds chown -R root;$(get_root_group) blablah.
For me is ok for G/FBSD.
Now, if someone from G/OSX or G/Darwin can tell me how they manage that, we
can be happy for all /alt archs :P
--
Diego Flameeyes Petten
Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64)
http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
pgpy1Qn3RT7G0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
On Sunday 22 May 2005 05:06 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
get_root_group() {
sounds like a lot of crap when i'm willing to bet most of these chowns
probably dont need to specify the group at all ...
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
| Hi,
| ok another problem for Gentoo/FreeBSD project :P
| Currently there are a few places where, to fix permissions of files, the
| ebuilds does a chown -R root:root ${D} or something similar.
| Unfortunately such a command is invalid on G/FBSD because there's no root
| group, instead wheel group has GID=0.
|
| So I was wondering for a solution for this problem: we have a $USERLAND
| variable which can be used to select the way the chown must be done,
if chown
| root:root or chown root:wheel; I think both BSD and Darwin userland
prefers
| root:wheel above root:root, so maybe adding a function in eutils which
fixes
| the permissions based on the current $USERLAND value is enough...
|
| Comments?
|
Yeah, this means get working on GLEP 27 *cracks whip*.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0027.html
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=I/Ly
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
On Sunday 22 May 2005 16:38, Alec Warner wrote: Yeah, this means get working on GLEP 27 *cracks whip*. Don't think it's related. That's related to new accounts/group added. The problem we have is with the base accounts/groups present in the system itself. -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64) http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ pgpJOFTuykZT8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 22, 2005, at 4:20 AM, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Sunday 22 May 2005 11:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
get_root_group() {
That should do, so in ebuilds chown -R root;$(get_root_group)
blablah.
For me is ok for G/FBSD.
Now, if someone from G/OSX or G/Darwin can tell me how they manage
that, we
can be happy for all /alt archs :P
Add the extra conditional for userland_Darwin and that should be good
for all the Gentoo redheaded step-children.
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò
Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64)
http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFCkJ9qJ0rMK/3OwgsRAvdxAJ9W7Bb1RmU3qUsZpRQEJL+dvjUWmQCdEj2X
WU/sF1HZur3JnRFZ8eAqjDA=
=yF9D
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
