From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 24 21:22:29 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8E816A41A for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:22:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417C913C455; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:22:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <47990194.3050101@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:22:28 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Much References: <20080123123208.GA71035@gate.oper.dinoex.org> In-Reply-To: <20080123123208.GA71035@gate.oper.dinoex.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports setting UIDs/GIDs broadscape: "chmod -R" likely breaks things! X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:22:30 -0000 Peter Much wrote: > Dear all, > > a couple of Ports have in the install part of their Makefiles > constructs like this: > > @ ${CHOWN} -R pgsql:pgsql ~pgsql/. ;\ > > I perceive this as very problematic. For instance: Below ~pgsql > there at least two mounted filesystems, both with a .snap directory, > which must be GID-operator. > Furthermore, ~pgsql is a fine place fore lots of data-import- and > -export-directories, each belonging to user or group of the corresponding > foreign subsystem. > > Now any time I reinstall or upgrade the port, all of this gets > destroyed, and has to be manually recreated. > > Is there any way to configure such unwanted modifications to not > happen? Maybe some central switch or Makefile.local or anything > I might have overlooked, which can be added and will persist the > updating of the ports tree (simply editing these Makefiles is not > feasible as they will be updated from CVS). > > If not, then I would strongly suggest that Ports maintainers > modify only and maximally those files+directories which get removed > and recreated during port upgrades. Yes, that seems overly broad. Please bring it up with the respective maintainers. Kris