Subject: Re: Package building questions...
To: Mason Loring Bliss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
Date: 02/20/1999 16:20:36
On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> I've decided to learn how to contribute packages. One thing I'd like to
> build is a particular mud server and library set. For security reasons,
> this is typically run by user "mud".
> Our web page says:
> * pkg/REQ:
> Require-script that is invoked before installation and de-installation
> to ensure things like certain accounts being available, user/sysadmin
> agreeing with usage policy, etc.
postgresql is one package that depends on being run by a specific
user. You might want to look at that for ideas.
Actually it might not be a bad idea if there was a standard
method of requiring a user, but that would be more work :)
> 1) Am I correct in assuming that the proper thing to do is to have a package
> require the existance of a particular account, and refuse to build without
> it, rather than blindly creating the account?
You can always make the build interactive and ask the question.
> 2) Should this check be done in .../pkg/REQ? If not, what's the appropriate
> 3) And is there an accepted way to allow a user to change such an account
> name, if they wish? I would assume that setting the desired default in the
> Makefile would work... Is it safe to assume that variables defined in the
> Makefile exist for, e.g., .../pkg/REQ? I can find this out from the source,
> but I'd be just as happy with commentary.
Pass - postgresql is probably not a bad place to look :)
> PS: I've grown accustomed to a feature in fvwm2 2.1.7... Is there any
> opposition to having our package source use this version? If not, I'll
> do up a package, once I've gotten the basics down. That version,
> anyway, compiles out of the box under NetBSD, I think. (I don't
> remember having to do anything at all funky to make it work.)
Sounds reasonable - just submit patches for the existing fvwm2
-=- "cold nights, dark days..." -=-