[darcs-devel] Removing dirty flag from Slurpy?
Andrew McGregor
andrew at indranet.co.nz
Mon May 9 06:32:43 PDT 2005
On 9/05/2005, at 11:19 PM, David Roundy wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:36:44PM +1200, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>
>>
>> What if the tree you want to manage with darcs isn't /etc, but the
>> source code to an entire OS, including /etc and everything else?
>>
>> At present we're maintaining a fixperms script that you have to run
>> after every darcs operation that creates files, which works but is
>> kind of annoying. It does at least serve to document what those
>> permissions should be.
>>
>
> I'd say that you need to have a fixownership script anyways, to set
> the
> owner and group of each object, so you don't lose much having to
> also set
> the permissions.
>
> Certainly for this scenario, you do want to version the permissions
> and
> ownership, but this is a very unusual case. And of course, setting
> the
> ownerships properly can only be done when running as root anyways,
> so we
> certainly don't want darcs doing that. I'd also point out that you
> might
> want the permissions for a development copy of your OS tree to be
> different
> from those of a running copy. For example, you probably want your
> developers to be able to read and write to all the version-controlled
> files, which means read and write permissions, even if the files in
> the
> running OS should be read-only (or unreadable, except by root).
Actually, now I think about it some more, maintaining execute
permission suffices to not break the build, and we need that
fixpermissions/fixownership script anyway. So a little bit of
complexity in the build system actually adds value here: we get the
script that documents the unusual permissions (and patches to it will
indicate why the permissions must be so) and makes sure that they end
up correct on the target (it's an embedded OS), all in one go.
So, I agree, execute only is enough.
Andrew
More information about the darcs-devel
mailing list