Subject: Re: bin/3563
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Taras Ivanenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/06/1998 16:34:20
If I may add my opinion,
> >>>>> "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 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!
Another case where you do not want to set user/group immediately on
installed binaries is during cross-compilation. Other system (SunOS in
my case) do not have the correct users/groups so installing them made
no sence. I had to comment out all chown statements in *.mk files to
let the make process go smoothly. I did nothing to restore the correct
owner/permissions for installed files and I still have not finished
upgrading my system. So, I would too appreciate the ability to run
'make install' into the appropriate DESTDIR without changing the
owner/group of the installed files.