Am 12.09.2010 um 19:36 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
[...]
> I just tried building fakeroot-1.14.4. Believe it or, it actually builds and
> even has Mac OS X specific code in it. If someone wants to play with it, you
> can't just call 'make', you need to use 'make wrapper.h libmacosx.la all' due
>
Thinking again about what I wrote, I disagree with myself ;)
Am 12.09.2010 um 14:51 schrieb Max Horn:
[...]
>
> Of course, any approach should only be done if it can't be avoided by
> non-root users.
>
> OK, I'll try to compare both approaches (if done properly), the suid-chown
> and the dele
On Sep 12, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Max Horn wrote:
> Good question... Anybody know?
>
> They used to have a tool called "fakeroot" for allowing non-root users to
> build packages (we used to contemplate porting that to Mac OS X, but that's
> hard, as the tool is system specific). But I don't know wh
Am 12.09.2010 um 12:58 schrieb Sjors Gielen:
>
> Op 12 sep 2010, om 09:33 heeft Max Horn het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Here is one idea: Maybe we could insert our own custom chmod/chown scripts
>> into the PATH used for building packages, with suid flag set, so that they
>> can invoke the ori
Op 12 sep 2010, om 09:33 heeft Max Horn het volgende geschreven:
> Here is one idea: Maybe we could insert our own custom chmod/chown scripts
> into the PATH used for building packages, with suid flag set, so that they
> can invoke the original chmod/chown with the appropriate rights. Of course
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 09:33:39 0200, Max Horn wrote:
> Here is one idea: Maybe we could insert our own custom chmod/chown
scripts into the PATH used for building packages, with suid flag set,
so that they can invoke the original chmod/chown with the appropriate
rights. Of course that punch
Hi there,
given that apparently quite some packages are affected by the inability to use
chmod/chown/chgrp when building as nobody, maybe we should take a step back and
see if we can come up with a better solution than "hack the makefile, the move
the commands to a PostInstScript". The problem
On 09/11/2010 5:20 PM, David Lowe wrote:
> Okeh, i guess i still need help. I see the PostInstScript in the
> xinvaders info file, but i don't see where in it the offending
> commands get edited out of the makefile. Isn't it normally done
> using "sed"? FWIW, i'll include what i have so far for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/11/10 5:57 PM, Sjors Gielen wrote:
>
> Op 11 sep 2010, om 23:20 heeft David Lowe het volgende geschreven:
>
>> "# chgrp "" "$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/angband"
>> #chmod g+s "$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/angband"
>
> By the way,
>
> Now that Fink builds
Op 11 sep 2010, om 23:20 heeft David Lowe het volgende geschreven:
> "#chgrp "" "$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/angband"
> # chmod g+s "$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/angband"
By the way,
Now that Fink builds as nobody by default (or was this just proposed?) - what's
the policy on packages requiring build-a
On 3 Sep, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Hanspeter Niederstrasser wrote:
> On 9/3/10 12:14 PM, David Lowe wrote:
>
>> It might be the case that the executable wants to run under the 'games'
>> group for some reason--but I'm not sure.
>>
>> - --build-as-nobody doesn't allow _any_ use of chgrp, chmod, ..., be
On 9/3/10 12:58 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 9/3/10 12:14 PM, David Lowe wrote:
>> I think all these games that failed Buildworld seem to need the "games"
>> account... Adding a BDep on passwd did not improve the situation. This and
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/3/10 12:14 PM, David Lowe wrote:
> I think all these games that failed Buildworld seem to need the "games"
> account... Adding a BDep on passwd did not improve the situation. This and
> similar commands were hand crafted into the InstallS
I think all these games that failed Buildworld seem to need the "games"
account... Adding a BDep on passwd did not improve the situation. This and
similar commands were hand crafted into the InstallScript, theoretically for a
reason. Does anybody know what it was? Is it still needed?
14 matches
Mail list logo
