pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Permissions, uid, gid ... packaging mess!

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Permissions, uid, gid ... packaging mess!
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:56:15 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: PCP Mailing List <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51EBB3FB.9060309@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <51EBB3FB.9060309@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: oJcHOaEep++j208nEGw5j0lM5t4c6g==
Thread-topic: Permissions, uid, gid ... packaging mess!
Hi Ken,

----- Original Message -----
> In the wake of the /var/run/pcp issue last week, I started looking at
> the broader issue of setting uids, gids and permissions for the
> artifacts in the PCP packages.
> 
> In short it is a mess, as a result of organic evolution and no
> underlying policy that provides coherence within the one package, much
> less across the package types and platforms.
> 
> By way of an example, we start with makefile rules like this
> 

Interestingly, it seems to depend on whether the install target is a
file or a directory - at various times I've changed both types, but
evidently only ever checked directories were OK.

So, as another wrinkle for your original list - rpm packaging turns
out to be OK for directories but not regular files.

> We seem to use some combination of ...
> 
> 1.  makefile install lines
> 2.  generic package rewriting rules
> 3.  cherry picked rewriting cases
> 4.  post-install scripts to "fix" things up
> 5.  run time actions to fix things in the Irish mode (to be sure, to be
> sure)
> 
> I think we should start with the proposition that the makefiles should
> be source of truth, 2. may be needed. 3. is to be avoided.  4. should
> not be needed.  5. is the ultimate evil.

Hah - yes, agreeed - we definitely should drive as much as possible
from the makefiles.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>