On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 08:48:43AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > I'm going to disagree with you guys. I don't like chowning the source > tree to be owned by root. That is no way to go about fixing a broken > installation.
You're right. Chowning the sources *prevents* a broken installation so you don't have to *fix* the installation later. > It is a bad example, and it makes it difficult to delete the source > tree by the unprivileged user. Well I don't know about the "bad example" reference. The only bad example I'm seeing is being done by upstream in their Makefiles. Anyway, after make install, the book is done with the source tree and continues on, as root, in configuring and chowning /srv/www, so I don't see how this would be a problem for deleting the sources. You already are root, and if you are concerned with scripting, then you are either typing your passwd a bunch of times already, or using sudo. Again, no problems for removing the source tree. Anyone fit to build BLFS can handle the *slight* oddity of requiring root to remove the source tree. Perhaps others can speak up on this thread, though, cause all we have now is 2 differing opinions that result in the same final product. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
