On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Why? If we can handle such case (umask != *77), why we don't handle
> this?
>
> Grep in scripts/ for 'fowner'
>
> controllib.pl:@fowner = (getpwnam(getlogin()))[2,3];
> dpkg-distaddfile.pl:chown(@fowner, "$fileslistfile.new")
> dpkg-gencontrol
Ian Jackson wrote:
:
: Oh dear.
:
: Heiko Schlitterman says that he's changed some programs (he doesn't
: say exactly which) to change the ownership of debian/files and
: debian/substvars.
: case `umask` in
: *77)echo >&2 \
: 'dpkg-buildpackage: warning: bad umask will probably break build'
I see from Heiko Schlitterman's patch that he's added an option to
change the architecture in the name of the .changes file made by
dpkg-buildpackage.
Why was this done ?
I'm also not convinced that his implementation of the way -m and so
forth are handled by dpkg-buildpackage will work if the va
Oh dear.
Heiko Schlitterman says that he's changed some programs (he doesn't
say exactly which) to change the ownership of debian/files and
debian/substvars.
This is not a good idea, and doesn't correctly solve the problem
either.
I think that the right fix is to put near the top of dpkg-buildpa
4 matches
Mail list logo
