[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2004/09/03]
--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 02:05:18AM -0700, Ann Barcomb wrote: > On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Peter Pentchev wrote: >=20 > > Well, if you are not using any CVS keywords, then why don't you just > > say so? CVS has keyword expansion flags for that, especially -ko, > > although -kb might also be desirable in some cases. Of course, this > > will not help when you check out or update your work on the production > > servers, but at least on your development machines ko-marked scripts > > will not be touched. >=20 > Hmm, probably because I didn't know of that flag. I have used -kb on > occassion, but not in order to prevent permission changes. >=20 > However, I think it is probably not worth setting these flags because > I still won't have the changes on other checkouts. It would be better > to write a script which sets permissions correctly and is run at > regular intervals. >=20 > All in all, a tarball is sounding like a better way of updating a live > server. IMHO, the best way would be to write a couple of Makefile's, checkout in a separate location, and then 'make install DESTDIR=3D/whatever' (or DESTDIR could even be defined with a '?=3D' 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. =09 > But the real point, as I see it, is that it is not logical that > checking in a file which may contain a CVS keyword changes the > permissions on the file. I can understand how it happens (probably > because of an rm and a new file instead of a modification of the old > file), but if I wasn't able to imagine an implementation which could > cause that side effect, how would I ever be able to guess that the > way to avoid it would be to eliminate the opportunity for CVS to > use keywords? You will note that I didn't guess it, even with > the implementation possibility in my mind. >=20 > 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). G'luck, Peter --=20 Peter Pentchev roam@xxxxxxx.xxx roam@xxxxx.xx roam@xxxxxxx.xxx PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 I am not the subject of this sentence. --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBODZ97Ri2jRYZRVMRAvC5AJ0botwdfHAVKvd2SKWEj2IoQZaG9wCgtKBv YQRFkVrorxKQU8wMvb8gz0w= =xycc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk--There's stuff above here
Generated at 02:00 on 04 Sep 2004 by mariachi 0.52