[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.

-- tomás

Attachment: pgpQF5R6vLrWD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]