Summary: | portage: DISTDIR on a vfat files system: portage complains every time | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Toralf Förster <toralf> |
Component: | Core | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED LATER | ||
Severity: | trivial | Keywords: | NeedPatch |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Toralf Förster
2005-12-02 12:40:16 UTC
Personally, DISTDIR should support perms from where I'm sitting. The chown/chmod'ing involved are attempts to verify people can't go and screw with random tarballs, which lacking any uid/gid/perms for vfat, is rather hard to do. yes, but such things are left to admins ... perhaps the middle ground would be that if the first chown/chgrp failed, dump the warning, but silence all the rest Making portage do that is kind of icky, offhand. Yes, admin has choice in the matter, but portage also _does_ try to protect it's files to maintain basic sanity. Not sure if I like limiting those checks (regardless if the admin is the one potentially shooting themselves in the foot). >dump the warning, but silence all the rest
right SpanKY that's basically what I mean
Checking whether the file systems supports chown/chgrp or not after start of
emerge displaying a warning about limited capability would give a more clear
warning than "cannot chown ..." b/c that could be caused by other reasons than
th efile system type.
Maybe what's really wanted here is just a way to silence all warning messages related to filesystem permissions? In 2.1 we have a --quiet option that should silence this (it silences other things too though). Well I'd say at root of this issue is portage requires an FS with POSIX permissions, I don't see how this is a horrible requirement. I think think a decent output scheme ( for errors and other things ) is a good thing to have. As noone has taken care of this yet it probably requires a community patch |