[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions
From: |
tomas |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:59:17 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.3i |
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 04:34:24PM +0200, Robin Farine wrote:
> On Thursday 30 September 2004 09.37, address@hidden wrote:
>
> > > The only thing Arch needs to provide is a
> > > hook triggered by commands that alter a project tree, e.g. get,
> > > replay, update,.
> >
> > Yes, and each platform will pick the attributes it cares about
[...]
> It might even not be necessary to automatically make a choice based
> on the platform. In the case where I maintain my home directory
> under Arch control, I would arrange for my Arch hook script to call
> the appropriate tool with say "home-permissions" in argument to
> apply the UNIX permissions defined in this file of the project
> tree. The tool would just complain and do nothing if it cannot
> parse "home-permission" correctly.
[...]
> Yes I think we speak roughly about the same thing. Just to be more
> specific, let me give another example.
[...]
> directories * * 00755 # default for directories
> files * * 00644 # default for files
> ...
> <inventory id for etc/ldap.secret> * * 00600
> ...
>
> The other file, "permissions.root", might look like this:
>
> directories root root 00755 # default for directories
> files root root 00644 # default for files
> ...
> ?./etc/ldap.secret root root 00600
> ...
>
> and can be used by bob1 to generate a deployment tar file of "etc"
> with the correct access rights for actual "/etc" files [...]
This makes a lot of sense. And excuse my blindness. When I was saying
`platform' above it should be substituted for `use case', which is
far more generic.
All in all I like your approach very much.
What I'm unconfortable with still is the ad-hoc-ish file format you
used in the examples. Maybe that's what I aimed at when proposing
a way of storing generic attributes. An application should be able
to extract ``the deploy permissions of file foo'' as it is able
to extract ``the colour of file bar'' without knowing what it *is*;
the hook scripts know about specific bits and do whatever is necessary
(separate archival from actions, if you wish).
> And as usual, the good practices would follow as the
> 4th step, based on other people's feedback :)
Of course.
Thanks
-- tomás
pgpQF5R6vLrWD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, tomas, 2004/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, tomas, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions,
tomas <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Aaron Bentley, 2004/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Miles Bader, 2004/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Stefan Monnier, 2004/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Milan Cvetkovic, 2004/09/24