Subject: Re: and -U confusion
To: Bill Studenmund <>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <>
List: current-users
Date: 08/15/2005 16:11:14
In message <>, Bill Studenmund writes:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Disposition: inline
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 09:08:05PM +0100, Matthias Scheler wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 03:33:33PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> > > Good idea. What about this:
>> >=20
>> > do you mean all 3, or choose 1?
>> All 3.
>> > 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.
>> If it can reliably detect the error it can also avoid it.
>The problem I see is that with a brand new destdir, there will be no=20
>metalog. So we would move from using command-line arguements to having to=
>touch or not touch a file to get a behavior.
>I think options 1 & 2 from the original list are great for installs. For=20
>building, though, if you set -U, you should get an unprived build. Builds=
>w/o -U but with a metalog erroring out would be fine too.

Hmm -- if you're running as non-root, create the metalog; when 
installing, use the metalog if it exists.  -U will create the metalog 
even if running as root.

		--Steven M. Bellovin,