Re: CVS hatred

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2004/09/03]

From: Ann Barcomb
Subject: Re: CVS hatred
Date: 10:26 on 03 Sep 2004
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Peter Pentchev wrote:

> IMHO, the best way would be to write a couple of Makefile's, checkout in
> a separate location, and then 'make install DESTDIR=/whatever' (or
> DESTDIR could even be defined with a '?=' in the Makefile itself).  Then
> the Makefile's would use install(1) with appropriate -o, -g and -m
> flags, and everything will be just fine.

The way I see it, I need to:
* maintain permissions after checkins on the development server
* set permissions correctly when doing a new checkout/installation
* maintain permissions when doing an update on development + live

A make file is only going to handle the second one, so I'd rather
come up with one solution that addresses all needs and doesn't require
me to look in the cvs source.  But that's just me.

> > There is simply no logical relationship between the task of saving
> > a file and automatically changing the permissions of the file.
> True.  I wonder if it would be hard to add a stat()/chmod() to CVS; I'll
> look into that sometime soon (been looking through the CVS sources
> recently for unrelated reasons).
This would be a nice way to improve cvs.  I suspect it needs a chown
for the right group ownership as well.

Generated at 02:00 on 04 Sep 2004 by mariachi 0.52