Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-22 Thread Hazel Russman
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:14:31 +0100 Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote: From memory (so, I might be wrong) the book doesn't ever create a 'users' group in LFS... So, I _guess_ that the 'users' group exists on your host system and you will need to create it in LFS to get these tests

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-22 Thread Pierre Labastie
Le 22/04/2014 13:31, Hazel Russman a écrit : On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:14:31 +0100 Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote: From memory (so, I might be wrong) the book doesn't ever create a 'users' group in LFS... So, I _guess_ that the 'users' group exists on your host system and you

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-22 Thread Hazel Russman
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:42:58 +0200 Pierre Labastie pierre.labas...@neuf.fr wrote: It seems that the bin group membership of the daemon user is not needed. Could you confirm? Confirmed. It is also not necessary to set real home directories or shells for the bin and daemon users as specified in

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-22 Thread Pierre Labastie
Le 22/04/2014 17:51, Hazel Russman a écrit : On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:42:58 +0200 Pierre Labastie pierre.labas...@neuf.fr wrote: It seems that the bin group membership of the daemon user is not needed. Could you confirm? Confirmed. It is also not necessary to set real home directories or

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-22 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Pierre Labastie wrote: Le 22/04/2014 17:51, Hazel Russman a écrit : On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:42:58 +0200 Pierre Labastie pierre.labas...@neuf.fr wrote: It seems that the bin group membership of the daemon user is not needed. Could you confirm? Confirmed. It is also not necessary to set real

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-21 Thread Armin K.
On 04/21/2014 06:13 PM, Hazel Russman wrote: I am building a 7.5 LFS with systemd and currently working through chapter 6. Having successfully installed coreutils, I rebuilt acl and ran the test suite. Initially I got 47 errors! According to BLFS, the acl test suite requires a daemon user

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-21 Thread Hazel Russman
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:32:49 +0200 Armin K. kre...@email.com wrote: Drop the root-tests, they are broken anyways. I couldn't even get them to run with daemon user present. I didn't do the root tests. These were the standard ones invoked with make tests though of course I was logged in as root

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-21 Thread Pierre Labastie
Le 21/04/2014 18:13, Hazel Russman a écrit : I am building a 7.5 LFS with systemd and currently working through chapter 6. Having successfully installed coreutils, I rebuilt acl and ran the test suite. Initially I got 47 errors! According to BLFS, the acl test suite requires a daemon user

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-21 Thread Pierre Labastie
Le 21/04/2014 18:13, Hazel Russman a écrit : I am building a 7.5 LFS with systemd and currently working through chapter 6. Having successfully installed coreutils, I rebuilt acl and ran the test suite. Initially I got 47 errors! According to BLFS, the acl test suite requires a daemon user

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-21 Thread Pierre Labastie
Le 21/04/2014 19:25, Pierre Labastie a écrit : Le 21/04/2014 18:13, Hazel Russman a écrit : I am building a 7.5 LFS with systemd and currently working through chapter 6. Having successfully installed coreutils, I rebuilt acl and ran the test suite. Initially I got 47 errors! According to

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-21 Thread Hazel Russman
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 19:25:10 +0200 Pierre Labastie pierre.labas...@neuf.fr wrote: Looking more closely at your log, it seems that acl's are enabled, because the line beginning with [95]: 'getfacl --omit-header f' correctly returns acl entries: user::rw- user:bin:rw- user:daemon:r--

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

2014-04-21 Thread Ken Moffat
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:36:19PM +0100, Hazel Russman wrote: On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 19:25:10 +0200 Pierre Labastie pierre.labas...@neuf.fr wrote: Looking more closely at your log, it seems that acl's are enabled, because the line beginning with [95]: 'getfacl --omit-header f' correctly