On 22 June 2017 at 14:42, jcbollinger <john.bollin...@stjude.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 5:26:41 AM UTC-5, Robert Inder wrote:
>
> I don't understand why the behavior you describe occurs, but I also don't
> understand why you are trying to set the owner of the link in the first
> place, especially if the directory containing it belongs to root.
>
I was creating a number of files, mostly in the user's own directory,
and I simply I used the same "pattern" for each of them...
>
>> If I change the manifest to not specify ownership of the link,
>> it creates a "swindon" link link owned by root.
>>
>
> So why not go with that?
>
Now that, thanks to Rob Nelson's suggestion (for which many thanks, Rob),
I realise that this will work, that is indeed the route I will go down.
Though there does still seem to be a bug in there somewhere...
> The link owner is relevant only to modifying or removing the link itself,
> and since you're managing it via Puppet, I don't see what purpose it serves
> to relax the permissions for that. The link owner and permissions have no
> relevance to *traversing* the link (see symlink(7)).
>
>
> John
>
>
--
Robert Inder, 0131 229 1052 / 07808 492
213
Interactive Information Ltd, 3, Lauriston Gardens, Edinburgh EH3 9HH
Registered in Scotland, Company no. SC 150689
Interactions speak louder than
words
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-users/CAKqjJm-vLb-%3D%2BGo4%2BbwNM13JOVipDf0nsoZnk3xmFsUbrs6q6Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
