problems with chowning the package dir
Chown --recursive in addinguser.xml is at best unnecessary and at worst, can be dangerous. The reasoning is since the defacto standard in at least the 5.0-3 and current testing profiles is to copy the tarballs, and the umask is set to 022, it will not matter if the packages dir is chowned since user lfs only needs 755 on the dir and 644 on the tarballs (which will happen with umask 022). Now in a copy itself, it doesn't really matter (but doesn't add any value, either). But if you mount --bind your sources then either 2 things will happen. One, if you keep sources on RO media (like a CD) the build will die. Two, if the sources are on one of the host dirs, you are effectively modifying the host, which can cause unnecessary problems and should probably be avoided. The last problem is that in creatingtoolsdir.xml, the comment about mount --bind refers to a umount command which isn't in the profile anywhere.
Change History
(4)
| Resolution: |
→ fixed
|
| Status: |
new → closed
|
| Component: |
LFS Profiles → LFS Tasks
|
I don't know why it formatted that way. I'll redo it:
Chown --recursive in addinguser.xml is at best unnecessary and at worst, can be dangerous. The reasoning is since the defacto standard in at least the 5.0-3 and current testing profiles is to copy the tarballs, and the umask is set to 022, it will not matter if the packages dir is chowned since user lfs only needs 755 on the dir and 644 on the tarballs (which will happen with umask 022). Now in a copy itself, it doesn't really matter (but doesn't add any value, either). But if you mount --bind your sources then either 2 things will happen. One, if you keep sources on RO media (like a CD) the build will die. Two, if the sources are on one of the host dirs, you are effectively modifying the host, which can cause unnecessary problems and should probably be avoided. The last problem is that in creatingtoolsdir.xml, the comment about mount --bind refers to a umount command which isn't in the profile anywhere.