Subject: Re: build.sh and -U confusion
To: Matthias Scheler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
Date: 08/13/2005 15:33:33
firstname.lastname@example.org (Matthias Scheler) writes:
> In article <20050810210417.BD6F25283@fnord.ir.bbn.com>,
> Greg Troxel <email@example.com> writes:
> > I ended up with a system with files in e.g. /usr/bin owned by gdt,
> > with no suid bits. netstat didn't work, and I think sshd didn't
> > start. While I realize this was my fault, it would be nice if
> > ./build.sh install without -U errored out if the build had METALOG
> > files.
> Good idea. What about this:
do you mean all 3, or choose 1?
> 1.) "./build.sh" refuses to build into a destination directory without a
> meta log if "-U" is used.
for other than install, I think, and that's refuses if dest dir exists
(or exists and is nonempty?) and has no metalog.
> 2.) "./build.sh" refuses to build into a destination directory with a
> meta log if "-U" is not used.
> 3.) "./build.sh" checks whether there is a meta log in the destination
> directory and does The Right Thing(TM).
for install, or refuses if the existence of the metalog and the -U
flag don't sense. I'm a bit leery of making such decisions
automatically, but fine with failing if they are wrong.
Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>