Am Donnerstag, den 08.11.2007, 20:31 -0500 schrieb Justin Pryzby: > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:35:00AM +0930, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2007 9:43 AM, Justin Pryzby <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 09:35:05AM +0930, Paul Wise wrote: > > > > postinst should use dpkg-statoverride instead of chown > > > Really? I thought this was an administrator's tool, and the postinst > > > should do something like > > > > I guess I meant "chowning blindly" instead of "chown". > > > > I do note that a few postinst files in my /var/lib/dpkg/info/ use > > dpkg-statoverride rather than chown. > > > > I guess I should reread devref/policy. > Policy mentions this in 10.9.1; it appears that it can be correct to > do either dpkg-statoverride --update or use chown directly, as long as > it's conditional on does dpkg-statoverride -l $f >/dev/null. > > I note that using chown doesn't add the file to the override data, > which I argue is a good thing due to no ambiguity about who put it > there. I had the same issue myself, some days ago. I wasn't sure if using chown or dpkg-statoverride in postinst was the correct way. You argue for not using dpkg-statoverride, policy seems to recommend it though. Asking on #debian-devel, the answers I got were, to use dpkg-statoverride unless I have a very good reason not to. I think one disadvantage of using chown in postinst is, that you have a time frame between unpack and postinst, where the binary has the wrong the permissions. With dpkg-statoverride, dpkg will take care that the binary has always the correct permissions. So this is a big advantage of using dpkg-statoverride. Admittedly it would be nice, if policy was more precise in that matter. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil