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

Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-04-09

On 4/10/19 14:56, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 4/10/19 2:48 PM, Frank Scheiner wrote:
I tested that change with [1] in "normal" installation mode and it still
complains with "permission denied". It works through though, when I make
"mkhfs-bootstrap.sh" executable. I then tested with a "real" sh locally
and it behaves the same. It works with just `sh '[...]'` and
`mkhfs-bootstrap.sh` without execute permissions.

So I now included a modified change (without ` -c`,) rebased to current
master of the upstream branch and force pushed it to my feature branch
on salsa.d.o. The MR is at [2].

Good that we tested that.

FWIW, I still find the design of gitlab/salsa suboptimal. When I click
your link, I am getting your 4-week-old pull request without all the
current changes.

That's strange. The changes under the "Changes" tab should always show
the last revision, which they actually do for me. Maybe a browser
caching issue?

But I actually wonder why `mkhfs-bootstrap.sh` doesn't get installed
with execute permissions, because the `grub-installer` script retains
its execute permissions when installed and both have the same
permissions in the git repo:

Because your patch applied to the local package I created did not add
executable permissions. But relying on these permissions isn't
reliable anyway, so the cleaner way is to add the "sh" prefix.

That explains it.

...and I also don't see any specific differences for `grub-installer`
compared to `mkhfs-bootstrap.sh` in `debian/grub-installer.install`,
except for the destination path (`/usr/bin` and
`/usr/lib/grub-installer` respectively).

FWIW, could you rename "mkhfs-bootstrap.sh" to "mk-hfs-bootstrap.sh"
for consistency?

Yeah, I'll work through the discussion on [2] and update the MR.

[2]: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/grub-installer/merge_requests/2


Reply to: