On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:31:59PM -0700, UNIX admin wrote: > I can well understand that. Although, you are aware of the fact that, > the more packages set perms explicitly, the higher the chance that one of > those will set them incorrectly? That's just statistics. Or do all your > developers, bar none, know exactly at all times what the perms are > supposed to be? If that's the case, you've got some seriously disciplined > development, and that's something to admire.
Mostly. Builds of ON and SFW, at least, perform some checks in nightly, comparing what's in the proto area with what's in the packages, and if they don't match, it complains. You can't putback a change that makes the build complain, so problems like that hardly ever make it into the gate, and get fixed very quickly if they do. Beyond that, when the consolidations integrate to release engineering, there's another set of consistency checks that are performed, and this integration will fail if the permissions aren't consistent. > > > Third thing to consider is parametrizing. Instead of setting "root > > > sys" explicitly in the prototype file, consider defining something > > > like > > > > Please don't. It'll break the packaging consistency checks. > > That's really a shame, since one loses all teh advantages of > parametrization. No chance of adapting the checks? Possible. I whacked together some code to do something similar last Christmas (it was parameterizing pathnames for some SFW packages I was working on, which had version numbers in about a thousand pathnames), and I can go dig it up again if people are interested. Danek _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
