Re: pkg/50649: checkperms should probably not return error with -ff if all errors fixed

[Richard PALO <richard%netbsd.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/50649; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Richard PALO <richard%netbsd.org@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: pkg/50649: checkperms should probably not return error with -ff
 if all errors fixed
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 05:54:34 +0100

 Le 11/01/16 21:50, Joerg Sonnenberger a écrit :
 > The following reply was made to PR pkg/50649; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > Cc: pkg-manager%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, pkgsrc-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
 > Subject: Re: pkg/50649: checkperms should probably not return error with -ff
 >  if all errors fixed
 > Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:48:34 +0100
 > 
 >  On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 08:30:01PM +0000, richard%NetBSD.org@localhost wrote:
 >  > >Description:
 >  > as mentioned on pkgsrc-users@, it has been noticed that if
 >  > 'checkperms -cff' is used, even if the protection errors detected
 >  > are fixed, an error is returned... which is not very intuitive.
 >  
 >  Indepent of anything else, packages should not depend on checkperms to
 >  fix things up. It is not run for PKG_DEVELOPER=no by default and errors
 >  only visible in that case are horrible...
 >  
 >  It makes me wonder if the autofix variable shouldn't be just removed in
 >  first place, it makes no sense.
 >  
 >  Joerg
 >  
 > 
 
 This issue was filed based upon the documtation of checkperms itself 
 and that of check/check-perms.mk where, as it stands currently.
 
 If these options are chucked out, that naturally rips the rug out from under the issue.
 
 On the other hand, I'm not so sure our job (in pkgsrc, anyway) is to waste a lot
 of time doing things like fixing up protections that error out only because checkperms
 finds them.  
 
 Using CHECK_PERMS_AUTOFIX=yes in a package, in the case at hand a python package
 seems (currently) justified. 
 
 The files fixed up here are egg-info files auto generated by 'setup.py sdist' on windows platforms.
 
 The relevant information to convey upstream for fixup is, in any event, displayed
 in the message output of checkperms.
 
 -- 
 Richard PALO