Subject: Re: bin/3563
To: Erik E. Fair <>
From: Michael C. Richardson <>
List: current-users
Date: 07/06/1998 15:12:49

>>>>> "Timekeeper" == Timekeeper  <Erik> writes:

    Timekeeper> I reread the PR. The PR talks about installation, not "make

  Erik, try building a new tool chain that uses something new from libutil
or libc without doing "make install". This was particularly bad during
1.2G to release. Maybe it will be better before 1.4, but I don't expect so.

    Timekeeper> I'm curious to know how you propose to put the correct file ownerships in
    Timekeeper> place *after* installation of those binaries, if not done at install-time?
    Timekeeper> There are quite a few setuid binaries which won't even work without the right
    Timekeeper> owner or group on them.

  To the first approximation, I don't care about those. I care about 
being able to run the binaries that I just built in order to further
my build process.
  Please go read the Nov. 97 current-users under the title "building 1.3
under 1.2"

    Timekeeper> As a secondary issue, I have found that environment variable use for program
    Timekeeper> behavior of the type you suggest violates the Principle of
    Least Astonishment.

  I made an offer to redo the patch to remove the environment variable,
and to add sufficient things to bsd.*.mk to let me have an "INSTALLADD"
or something.

    Timekeeper> For what you want to do, the /usr/share/mk/* files should be whacked for an
    Timekeeper> option not to set the ownerships of the files installed. However, without a
    Timekeeper> good answer to the question of how the ownerships get set later, I don't think
    Timekeeper> it's a good idea.

  To a second approximation, I'd rather that install recorded the permissions
in something like the mtree system, and then one ran "mtree" to set the right
permissions after a distribution is made. If only we could mount vnd's 
as non-root, then we'd be able to building everything without root!

    Timekeeper> In some sense, I believe you're seeking a way to do builds in a "sandbox" on
    Timekeeper> a production system; maybe some chroot'd environment?

    Timekeeper> this problem. I'm still willing, if my questions are answered. I'm not trying
    Timekeeper> to be difficult - just thorough.

  I appreciate this, but this is the third PR that it feels that I have
to argue a lot for with you.

   :!mcr!:            |  Sandelman Software Works Corporation, Ottawa, ON  
   Michael Richardson |	SSH IPsec: Secure, strong, international
 Personal: PGP key available.

Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface