Re: Change suggestion to distrib/sets/maketars

[Alan Barrett <apb%cequrux.com@localhost>]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009, Adam Ciarci?ski wrote:
> --- distrib/sets/maketars.orig        2009-02-04 23:21:23.000000000 +0100
> +++ distrib/sets/maketars
> @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ for setname in ${lists}; do
>       if [ -n "${installdir}" ]; then
>               msg "Copying set ${setname}"
>               ( cd "${dest}"; \
> -                 ${PAX} -O -rwpe -d -N"${etcdir}" ${metalog:+-M} \
> +                 ${PAX} -O -rwpe -l -d -N"${etcdir}" ${metalog:+-M} \
>                       "${installdir}" < "${setlistdir}/set.${setname}" )
>       else
>               if [ -n "${metalog}" -a "${tars}/${out}" -nt "${metalog}" ]
>
>
> It makes an instant installation for systems, where the build directory 
> is on the root file-system. :)

So this would add the "-l" flag, which makes pax use hard links if
possible.  I can see this being useful for people who build as root, do
not use a METALOG, and install without going through the "make release"
process; but I wonder how many people there are who do all of those
things (none of which I would recommend), and whether we really want to
encourage them.

Have you verified that pax doesn't do the wrong thing when it has both
the "-l" and "-M" flags (for example, using a hard link and then setting
the ownership and permissions in a way that affects the source file as
well as the destination file)?

--apb (Alan Barrett)