On Sunday 22 May 2005 10:49, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Hi,
> ok another problem for Gentoo/FreeBSD project :P
> Currently there are a few places where, to fix permissions of files,
> the ebuilds does a chown -R root:root ${D} or something similar.
> Unfortunately such a command is invalid
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 04:26 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 22 May 2005 11:09, Stuart Longland wrote:
> > Why not just use `chmod -R 0:0 ${D}`? That should have the desired
> > effect?
>
> Yes that will have so that should be good for all systems. For me that is
> ok... nobody di
On Sunday 22 May 2005 11:09, Stuart Longland wrote:
> Why not just use `chmod -R 0:0 ${D}`? That should have the desired effect?
Yes that will have so that should be good for all systems. For me that is
ok... nobody disagrees?
If it's ok... Mike commit the eclass so that sys-devel/gcc will works
On Monday 23 May 2005 12:23 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Of course, this issue is precisely what GLEP 27 was created to handle.
> The portage devs have let us know that xml is a problem
i thought i talked to them about your tweaks to use flat text files ... i'll
have to check again i guess ...
-mi
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: [Sun May 22 2005, 03:49:39AM CDT]
> So I was wondering for a solution for this problem: we have a
> $USERLAND variable which can be used to select the way the chown must
> be done, if chown root:root or chown root:wheel; I think both BSD and
> Darwin userland prefer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 22, 2005, at 4:20 AM, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Sunday 22 May 2005 11:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
get_root_group() {
That should do, so in ebuilds "chown -R root;$(get_root_group)
blablah".
For me is ok for G/FBSD.
Now, if someo
On Sunday 22 May 2005 16:38, Alec Warner wrote:
> Yeah, this means get working on GLEP 27 *cracks whip*.
Don't think it's related.
That's related to new accounts/group added.
The problem we have is with the base accounts/groups present in the system
itself.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo De
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
| Hi,
| ok another problem for Gentoo/FreeBSD project :P
| Currently there are a few places where, to fix permissions of files, the
| ebuilds does a chown -R root:root ${D} or something similar.
| Unfortunately such a
On Sunday 22 May 2005 05:06 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> get_root_group() {
sounds like a lot of crap when i'm willing to bet most of these chowns
probably dont need to specify the group at all ...
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sunday 22 May 2005 11:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> get_root_group() {
That should do, so in ebuilds "chown -R root;$(get_root_group) blablah".
For me is ok for G/FBSD.
Now, if someone from G/OSX or G/Darwin can tell me how they manage that, we
can be happy for all /alt archs :P
--
Diego "Fla
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Hi,
> ok another problem for Gentoo/FreeBSD project :P
> Currently there are a few places where, to fix permissions of files, the
> ebuilds does a chown -R root:root ${D} or something similar.
> Unfortunately such a command is invalid on G/FBSD because there's no
On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:49:39 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| So I was wondering for a solution for this problem: we have a
| $USERLAND variable which can be used to select the way the chown must
| be done, if chown root:root or chown root:wheel; I think both BSD and
Hi,
ok another problem for Gentoo/FreeBSD project :P
Currently there are a few places where, to fix permissions of files, the
ebuilds does a chown -R root:root ${D} or something similar.
Unfortunately such a command is invalid on G/FBSD because there's no root
group, instead wheel group has GID=0
13 matches
Mail list logo
