On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 04:06:20PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 03:11:39PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
>>> I've removed the patch tag, as the proposed patch is nacked, >> Except as outlined in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> what's wrong with the patch proposed in >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ? > it adds an config option that has only a small scope to an existing > conffile. OK, I understand now. >>> so we need for your loop-aes pleasure a specific config dir for >>> mkinitramfs UMASK setting, other packages may want to set >>> BUSYBOX=yes there or whatever. >> Aren't /usr/share/initramfs-tools/conf.d/ and/or >> /etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d/ already such "specific config dir"? > no they got source inside the initramfs on boot time, Ah yeah, right. > what you want is a conf dir for build specific package specific > settings. Actually, if we look at the details, I'm not sure the loopaes-utils package should unconditionally set the umask of initramfs-tools, as a significant portion of the users may have the package installed, but not an encrypted _root_ filesystem. So in the best case, we would want the loopaes hooks to be able to decide whether they touch the umask or not at runtime (runtime = building the initramfs), but this seems difficult at best. So, I suppose that the next best thing would be to give the _administrator_ a way to change the umask. But that's up to the maintainer of loopaes-utils, naturally. Max Vozeler? An opinion on that? -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
