Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> On 09/01/2008, at 11:32, Klaus Heinz wrote:
> >So, shouldn't it be sufficient to sweep through pkgsrc and convert all
> >uses of chown/chmod/chgrp to SPECIAL_PERMS? What am I missing?
>
> Wouldn't that be a maintenance nightmare? How do you deal with
> packages that call chown et al. from their Makefiles (not the pkgsrc
> ones)?
I am not sure I would call it a maintenance nightmare, but it sure
requires more work. If a package installs files with special permissions
or ownership we have to deal with this somehow and I do not see that the
solution outlined above is more work than using new variables.
In fact I have an example where I could have converted the package in
a straightforward way to DESTDIR mode because it already used OWN_DIRS_PERMS
with ${SHAREOWN}:${SHAREGRP}. As it is now, it declares
PKG_DESTDIR_SUPPORT=user-destdir which is _not_ correct because files get
installed with the current user as the owner instead of
${SHAREOWN}:${SHAREGRP} :-/
Personally, I am fan of explicitly specified permissions and ownership
(like in Solaris pkgmap files) and at least for special
permissions/ownership the solution outlined above _would_ make those
permissions more explicit.
> I'm joining this discussion late and I don't know if this has already
> been mentioned. But why not have chown/chgrp wrappers that capture
> special permissions and automatically add the necessary bits to the
> tarballs? (Much like the METALOG used in the base system.)
This is not purely about chgrp/chown commands. At the moment, someone
using ${SHAREOWN}:${SHAREGRP} does not get what he wants when installing
in DESTDIR mode and I do not think you can change this behaviour with
wrapper scripts.
ciao
Klaus