From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Oct 8 6:49:28 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B944C37B503 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 06:49:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from parish ([62.253.88.164]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with ESMTP id <20001008134919.NEPV19246.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@parish>; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:49:19 +0100 Received: (from mark@localhost) by parish (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e98DnAt01607; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:49:10 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:49:09 +0100 From: Mark Ovens To: Wilko Bulte Cc: Kent Stewart , Simon J Mudd , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make buildworld failing Message-ID: <20001008144909.D253@parish> References: <39E03D71.AC278983@urx.com> <20001008132312.A253@parish> <20001008154111.D96958@freebie.demon.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001008154111.D96958@freebie.demon.nl>; from wkb@freebie.demon.nl on Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:41:11PM +0200 Organization: Total lack of Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:41:11PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote: > On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:23:12PM +0100, Mark Ovens wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 02:25:05AM -0700, Kent Stewart wrote: > > > > > > > > > Simon J Mudd wrote: > > > > > > > > I successfully cvsup'ed the source to stable on 17/09/00 and decided > > > > to upgrade to the latest version of -STABLE with cvsup. > > > > > > > > The cvsup command works fine, but make buildworld fails at the same place > > > > with the same error message: > > > > > > I would remove /usr/obj/* before I try again. You will have to > > > cd /usr/obj > > > chflags -R noschg * > > > rm -rf * > > > > > > > cd /usr/obj > > rm -rf * > > chflags -R noschg * > > rm -rf * > > > > should be quicker as chflags(1) won't have to test every file (99% of which > > won't have the schg flag set). > > To be honest I'm puzzled as to the usefulness of noschg in the first place. > People already having root privs are not stopped by it. Oh yes they are: /tmp # touch foobar /tmp # chflags schg foobar /tmp # ls -lo foobar -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel schg 0 8 Oct 14:46 foobar /tmp # rm foobar override rw-r--r-- root/wheel schg for foobar? y rm: foobar: Operation not permitted /tmp # rm -f foobar rm: foobar: Operation not permitted /tmp # whoami root /tmp # > Or is it only aimed > at the higher securelevels? > > -- > Wilko Bulte > wilko@freebsd.org Arnhem, the Netherlands -- 4.4 - The number of the Beastie ________________________________________________________________ 51.44°N FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org 2.057°W My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark mailto:marko@freebsd.org http://www.radan.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message