Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 19:03:13 -0600 From: nate@sneezy.sri.com (Nate Williams) To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Cc: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: new install(1) utility Message-ID: <199504050103.TAA08504@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <9504050024.AA23499@cs.weber.edu> References: <199504042320.RAA07950@trout.sri.MT.net> <9504050024.AA23499@cs.weber.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert writes: > > > Serves you right for using the install utility to do the install > > > instead of using "cp -p". > > > > Ahh, and the overhead of calling chown, chgrp, and chmod is much better? > > 'I don't think so'. > > Since "cp -p" preserves this information, you are saying that the > copy in the source tree has the incorrect owner, group, and permissions. > This is something which should be corrected in the source tree. Doing > the correction post-facto elsewhere is bogus. Uhh, the permissions of the file *need* to be different in many cases since it's awful hard to get ld to make setuid files. For include files you want them to be writable in the src tree, but not in the /usr/include tree, and permissions for the installations *should* NEVER, NOT, EVER, be dependant on the permissions in the src tree. Now you are going to make us go hack all of our source code control tools so that they always restore the correct permissions and ownerships. 'cp -p' is NOT a solution. Not even close. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504050103.TAA08504>