From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j4OLpH66016180 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 21:51:17 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DahIy-0000kv-T8 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 May 2005 21:51:17 +0000 Received: (qmail 19003 invoked from network); 24 May 2005 17:49:27 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 24 May 2005 17:49:27 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:51:53 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <200505221049.39924@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <42904C62.9060403@longlandclan.hopto.org> <200505242226.42728@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> In-Reply-To: <200505242226.42728@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200505241751.53681.vapier@gentoo.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id j4OLpH66016180 X-Archives-Salt: 7cdb5406-380f-46d0-9722-b4d5f7e05d8e X-Archives-Hash: 635fa9f1472b84447d59f9918585ebbc On Tuesday 24 May 2005 04:26 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Sunday 22 May 2005 11:09, Stuart Longland wrote: > > Why not just use `chmod -R 0:0 ${D}`?  That should have the desired > > effect? > > Yes that will have so that should be good for all systems. For me that is > ok... nobody disagrees? only other idea i'd consider is having portage scan $D before each merge looking for files owned by group portage ? or perhaps making an eutils func for people to invoke ... but this is probably just as much cruft as the get_root_group() idea ... i imagine if someone comes up with a reason down the road why using gid 0 is a bad idea, they'll let us know and we can review this again Diego: feel free to commit the wheel -> 0 group change -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list