In message:
Scott Long writes:
: On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:53 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <9a8644ad-3b92-4bce-8a51-132f8ea35...@samsco.org>
: >Scott Long writes:
: > : On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:53 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > : >
: > : > In message:
: > : >
On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:53 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <9a8644ad-3b92-4bce-8a51-132f8ea35...@samsco.org>
>Scott Long writes:
> : On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:53 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : >
> : > In message:
> : >Scott Long writes:
> : > : Forcing the entire build
In message: <9a8644ad-3b92-4bce-8a51-132f8ea35...@samsco.org>
Scott Long writes:
: On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:53 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: >
: > In message:
: >Scott Long writes:
: > : Forcing the entire build to fail if chflags fails breaks installing
: > : to an NFS desti
On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:53 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>
> In message:
>Scott Long writes:
> : Forcing the entire build to fail if chflags fails breaks installing
> : to an NFS destination. I haven't tested all possible permutations
> : of src vs dest filesystems mounting, but I don't s
In message:
Scott Long writes:
: Forcing the entire build to fail if chflags fails breaks installing
: to an NFS destination. I haven't tested all possible permutations
: of src vs dest filesystems mounting, but I don't see how it can
: work over any type of NFS mount. What is the
* Scott Long wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Ed Schouten wrote:
> > * Scott Long wrote:
> >> What do you mean by "unconditionally"? Most of the utilities that
> >> install themselves with 'chflags schg' do so by unconditionally
> >> ignoring errors. Chpass seems to be the only exception at
On Mar 4, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Ed Schouten wrote:
> * Scott Long wrote:
>> What do you mean by "unconditionally"? Most of the utilities that
>> install themselves with 'chflags schg' do so by unconditionally
>> ignoring errors. Chpass seems to be the only exception at the
>> moment.
>
> No, I mean,
* Scott Long wrote:
> What do you mean by "unconditionally"? Most of the utilities that
> install themselves with 'chflags schg' do so by unconditionally
> ignoring errors. Chpass seems to be the only exception at the
> moment.
No, I mean, don't set schg unconditionally. NO_FSCHG should still wo
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Ed Schouten wrote:
* Scott Long wrote:
I'd like to re-add the '-' modifier to the chflags command that you
removed.
Be my guest. As long as it's not done unconditionally. :-)
What do you mean by "unconditionally"? Most of the utilities that install
themselves with 'ch
* Scott Long wrote:
> I'd like to re-add the '-' modifier to the chflags command that you
> removed.
Be my guest. As long as it's not done unconditionally. :-)
Greetings,
--
Ed Schouten
WWW: http://80386.nl/
pgpz0tbYnPoK8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Forcing the entire build to fail if chflags fails breaks installing to an NFS
destination. I haven't tested all possible permutations of src vs dest
filesystems mounting, but I don't see how it can work over any type of NFS
mount. What is the reason for forcing this failure? The NO_FSCHG var
11 matches
Mail list logo