[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LSB Spec 1.0 Criticism



On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 05:51:49PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Theodore Tso wrote:
> > CPIO format files specify file ownerships by numeric ID, not by name.
> 
> As far as I know that is not true.

Check out a POSIX.1 specification.  Even the extended CPIO format only
uses numbers for user and group ownership.  Or for an on-line
reference, check out:

	http://www.mkssoftware.com/docs/man4/cpio.4.asp

You'll see that even when the ASCII CPIO header is used, the user and
group ownership is expressed in a six character wide field in octal
ascii digits, zero-padded on the left.  

Or if you don't believe me or the on-line reference, try executing
this command:

	echo /etc/issue | cpio -o | cat -v

... and search in vain for the string "root".  (You will find the
string ^@^@^@^@, which is the user and group ownership in binary,
though.)

> Also rpm has a seperate metadata
> section with ownership for each file you can use so you never have
> to rely on the specific uid used (unless you have something is broken
> as qmail whichi hardcodes uids).

Yes, which is why the hard-coded user/group id isn't that big of a
deal.  It only applies for those folks who wish to distribute LSB
application using raw cpio files.  If we decide this isn't
particularly important, we can drop the requirements on the uid
ownership for bin.

Personally, I'd advocate dropping this requirement in LSB 1.1.

						- Ted



Reply to: