[gentoo-user] where to put mknod & chmod

[gentoo-user] where to put mknod & chmod

[maxim wexler]

Hi group,

One of my morning chores after booting linux is to su
and enter #mknod /dev/ppp c 108 0 and #chmod a+rw
/dev/parport0.

Where can I park these commands to automate the
process?

-Maxim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] where to put mknod & chmod

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 11 October 2006 18:00, maxim wexler wrote:
> Hi group,
>
> One of my morning chores after booting linux is to su
> and enter #mknod /dev/ppp c 108 0 and #chmod a+rw
> /dev/parport0.
>
> Where can I park these commands to automate the
> process?

udev is supposed to create these nodes and set the permissions. I don't 
have a ppp node as a) i don't use ppp anymore and b) when I did, kppp 
make the node itself. But I have a parport rule:

alan@gentoo /etc/udev $ grep -r parport *
permissions.d/50-udev.permissions:parport*:root:lp:0660
rules.d/50-udev.rules:KERNEL=="parport*",       NAME="%k", GROUP="lp"

What baselayout and udev version are you using?

alan
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] where to put mknod & chmod

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 345 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:00:32 -0700 (PDT), maxim wexler wrote:

> Where can I park these commands to automate the
> process?

See Alan's response about udev, but if you do need to execute commands at
bootup, /etc/conf.d/local.start is the place to put them.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

To whom the gods destroy, they first teach Windows...

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] where to put mknod & chmo

[Richard Fish]

On 10/11/06, maxim wexler <blissfix@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi group,
>
> One of my morning chores after booting linux is to su
> and enter #mknod /dev/ppp c 108 0 and #chmod a+rw
> /dev/parport0.
>
> Where can I park these commands to automate the
> process?

/etc/conf.d/local.start

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] where to put mknod & chmod

[maxim wexler]

> What baselayout and udev version are you using?
> 

Thanks Alan,

I added the commands to local.start and that seems to
have done the trick. 

But here's the baselayout and udev info:

heathen@localhost ~ $ emerge -pv baselayout

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild     U ] sys-apps/baselayout-1.12.5-r1
[1.11.15-r3] USE="unicode* -bootstrap -build -static"
215 kB

Total size of downloads: 215 kB
heathen@localhost ~ $ emerge -pv udev

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild   R   ] sys-fs/udev-087-r1  USE="(-selinux)" 0
kB

-Maxim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] where to put mknod & chmod

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 12 October 2006 16:44, maxim wexler wrote:
> > What baselayout and udev version are you using?
>
> Thanks Alan,
>
> I added the commands to local.start and that seems to
> have done the trick.

Ah, the old local.start hack

Apparently we should never use it for things like this. But we all 
do :-)

As a solution it's OK to do this, as long as you always remember that 
you put it there - future updates often end up doing strange things 
because of the contents of local.start, and the machine owner meanwhile 
has forgetten all about it... :-)
>
> But here's the baselayout and udev info:
>
> heathen@localhost ~ $ emerge -pv baselayout
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/baselayout-1.12.5-r1
> [1.11.15-r3] USE="unicode* -bootstrap -build -static"
> 215 kB
>
> Total size of downloads: 215 kB
> heathen@localhost ~ $ emerge -pv udev
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild   R   ] sys-fs/udev-087-r1  USE="(-selinux)" 0
> kB

Ok, those versons should be fine. It's been a while since I used those 
(I use ~x86), but there's no harm in emerging them, commenting out the 
contents of local.start and seeing what happens

alan
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] where to put mknod & chmod

[maxim wexler]

> 
> Ah, the old local.start hack
> 
> Apparently we should never use it for things like
> this. But we all 
> do :-)
> 
> As a solution it's OK to do this, as long as you
> always remember that 
> you put it there - future updates often end up doing
> strange things 
> because of the contents of local.start, and the
> machine owner meanwhile 
> has forgetten all about it... :-)

I remember on an earlier installation I added the
mknod command to local.start and when the PC booted
there were dozens of lines in the boot console that
said something like "mknod: device already exists".
But not this time. 

> Ok, those versons should be fine. It's been a while
> since I used those 
> (I use ~x86), but there's no harm in emerging them,
> commenting out the 
> contents of local.start and seeing what happens
> 

IIRC the last time I updated baselayout it overwrote
some important files and my system was un-usable. In
all the excitement I failed to note what they were. Is
there a list somewhere?

-Maxim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] where to put mknod & chmod

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 621 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:22:04 -0700 (PDT), maxim wexler wrote:

> IIRC the last time I updated baselayout it overwrote
> some important files and my system was un-usable. In
> all the excitement I failed to note what they were.

That wasn't baselayout, it was you when running etc-update.

> Is there a list somewhere?

Yes, etc-update shows it to your before asking what to do. Check the
contents of each file before allowing it to be overwritten, and never,
ever let etc-update overwrite etc/fstab, /etc/passwd or /etc/group.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] where to put mknod & chmod

[Drew]

On 10/11/06, Alan McKinnon <alan@linuxholdings.co.za> wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 October 2006 18:00, maxim wexler wrote:
> > Hi group,
> >
> > One of my morning chores after booting linux is to su
> > and enter #mknod /dev/ppp c 108 0 and #chmod a+rw
> > /dev/parport0.
> >
> > Where can I park these commands to automate the
> > process?

Another alternative to creating a script to automatically do what
you're asking is to set the following flag to "yes" in conf.d/rc. The
comments are pretty self explainatory.

---
# UDEV OPTION:
# Set to "yes" if you want to save /dev to a tarball on shutdown
# and restore it on startup.  This is useful if you have a lot of
# custom device nodes that udev does not handle/know about.

RC_DEVICE_TARBALL="no"
---


-Andrew
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Is it possible to protect *INDIVIDUAL FILES* against etc-update?

[Walter Dnes]

  Changing thread name here, because I'm going off on a tangent...

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 04:33:19PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:22:04 -0700 (PDT), maxim wexler wrote:
> 
> > IIRC the last time I updated baselayout it overwrote
> > some important files and my system was un-usable. In
> > all the excitement I failed to note what they were.
> 
> That wasn't baselayout, it was you when running etc-update.
> 
> > Is there a list somewhere?
> 
> Yes, etc-update shows it to your before asking what to do. Check the
> contents of each file before allowing it to be overwritten, and never,
> ever let etc-update overwrite etc/fstab, /etc/passwd or /etc/group.

  CONFIG_PROTECT and CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK work at the *DIRECTORY* level.
What I really want/need is a feature that allows additional protection
*FOR INDIVIDUAL FILES*.  E.g...

  - my customized /etc/conf.d/local.start or /etc/conf.d/local.stop
    should *NEVER* be replaced with an empty version

  - /etc/rc.conf should be left alone too.  ***FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME,
    NO I DO NOT WANT NANO REPLACING VIM AS MY "EDITOR"***

  - /etc/conf.d/clock too.  ***FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, NO I DO NOT WANT
    MY SYSTEM CLOCK SET TO GMT***

  - /etc/ssmtp/ssmtp.conf too.  ***FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, NO I DO NOT
    WANT MY CUSTOMIZED FILE REPLACED WITH AN EXAMPLE FILE***

  And the list goes on and on.  Howsabout an environmental variable
CONFIG_PROTECT_FILES, containing a list of protected files?  I'm ready
to submit a feature request if necessary.  Does anybody have additional
comments?

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> In linux /sbin/init is Job #1
My musings on technology and security at http://techsec.blog.ca
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Is it possible to protect *INDIVIDUAL FILES* against etc-update?

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2013 bytes --]

On Sunday 15 October 2006 06:40, Walter Dnes wrote:
[SNIP]
>   CONFIG_PROTECT and CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK work at the *DIRECTORY* level.
> What I really want/need is a feature that allows additional protection
> *FOR INDIVIDUAL FILES*.  E.g...
>
>   - my customized /etc/conf.d/local.start or /etc/conf.d/local.stop
>     should *NEVER* be replaced with an empty version
>
>   - /etc/rc.conf should be left alone too.  ***FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME,
>     NO I DO NOT WANT NANO REPLACING VIM AS MY "EDITOR"***
>
>   - /etc/conf.d/clock too.  ***FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, NO I DO NOT WANT
>     MY SYSTEM CLOCK SET TO GMT***
>
>   - /etc/ssmtp/ssmtp.conf too.  ***FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, NO I DO NOT
>     WANT MY CUSTOMIZED FILE REPLACED WITH AN EXAMPLE FILE***
>
>   And the list goes on and on.  Howsabout an environmental variable
> CONFIG_PROTECT_FILES, containing a list of protected files?  I'm ready
> to submit a feature request if necessary.  Does anybody have additional
> comments?

I suspect you don't really understand what CONFIG_PROTECT{,_MASK} is. Please 
read the output of `emerge --help --config`. All the files you've mentioned 
are covered by CONFIG_PROTECT in a default configuration so if they aren't it 
means you've screwed up your CONFIG_PROTECT and/or CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK 
variables. Otherwise it is you who overwrote those files with 
etc-update/dispatch-conf or whatever you use for that.

I suppose you could work around your own clumsiness ;) by removing the 
mentioned files in post_pkg_postinst of sys-apps/baselayout and 
mail-mta/ssmtp. Something like e.g.:

# mkdir -p /etc/portage/env/sys-apps && \
echo 'post_pkg_postinst() {
    echo "Removing new rc.conf, local.{start,stop} and clock"
    rm -fv ${ROOT}/etc/._cfg????_rc.conf \
           ${ROOT}/etc/conf.d/._cfg????_{local.start,local.stop,clock}
}' >> /etc/portage/env/sys-apps/baselayout

PS: Please don't capitalize your sentences like that. It's really annoying..

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Is it possible to protect *INDIVIDUAL FILES* against etc-update?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1755 bytes --]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:40:52 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:

> > Yes, etc-update shows it to your before asking what to do. Check the
> > contents of each file before allowing it to be overwritten, and never,
> > ever let etc-update overwrite etc/fstab, /etc/passwd or /etc/group.  
> 
>   CONFIG_PROTECT and CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK work at the *DIRECTORY* level.

That will change soon IIRC.

> What I really want/need is a feature that allows additional protection
> *FOR INDIVIDUAL FILES*.  E.g...

You don't understand what CONFIG_PROTECT means, it prevents files being
automatically overwritten during installation, leaving them to you to
update.

>   - my customized /etc/conf.d/local.start or /etc/conf.d/local.stop
>     should *NEVER* be replaced with an empty version

Agreed.
 
>   - /etc/rc.conf should be left alone too.  ***FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME,
>     NO I DO NOT WANT NANO REPLACING VIM AS MY "EDITOR"***

How would you know about changes to rc.conf? Either new features or changes in the way things are done would pass you by.

>   And the list goes on and on.  Howsabout an environmental variable
> CONFIG_PROTECT_FILES, containing a list of protected files?  I'm ready
> to submit a feature request if necessary.  Does anybody have additional
> comments?

As I've mentioned several times before, there was a patch to
dispatch-conf to do just this. You added the files you didn't want
touching, ever, to a line in the config file. Unfortunately, the patch
hasn't been updated for a couple of years and stopped working a while
ago. Why not re-open the bug at
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68618


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If you think that you can truncate my sig to 75 chars, then you can just
fu

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Is it possible to protect *INDIVIDUAL FILES* against etc-update?

[Walter Dnes]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 09:06:40AM +0200, Bo ?rsted Andresen wrote

> I suspect you don't really understand what CONFIG_PROTECT{,_MASK} is. Please 
> read the output of `emerge --help --config`. All the files you've mentioned 
> are covered by CONFIG_PROTECT in a default configuration so if they aren't it 
> means you've screwed up your CONFIG_PROTECT and/or CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK 
> variables. Otherwise it is you who overwrote those files with 
> etc-update/dispatch-conf or whatever you use for that.

  Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.  It works as designed.  I did
not overwrite the files, but I'm getting annoyed at having to tell
etc-update "NO" every few weeks when I run etc-update.  There are
anywhere from 10 to 40 files to plow through.  And I have a 7-year-old
PIII Dell as my emergency backup machine, so I repeat the process all
over again.

  What worries me is that one of these days I'll hit the wrong key (Y
instead of N) and zap a config file.  Yes, I do have backups, but how
long will it take me to realize what's happened?  What I'm asking for is
a way to pre-emptively tell etc-update not to bother me about certain
files.  Zap the new version and keep the old.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> In linux /sbin/init is Job #1
My musings on technology and security at http://techsec.blog.ca
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Is it possible to protect *INDIVIDUAL FILES* against etc-update?

[Richard Fish]

On 10/16/06, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> long will it take me to realize what's happened?  What I'm asking for is
> a way to pre-emptively tell etc-update not to bother me about certain
> files.  Zap the new version and keep the old.

cat > my_etcupdate.sh <<EOF
#!/bin/bash

EXCLUDE_FILES="/etc/conf.d/local.start
        /etc/conf.d/local.stop
        /etc/rc.conf
        "

for f in $EXCLUDE_FILES; do
        dn=`dirname $f`
        bn=`basename $f`
        rm -i "${dn}/._cfg[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]_${bn}"
done

etc-update
EOF

Then just add whatever files are bothing you to EXCLUDE_FILES, and run
my_etcupdate.sh instead of etc-update.

Or as Bo suggested, create scripts on a per-package basis in
/etc/portage/env/cat-egory/package to remove the new configs after the
packages are merged.

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Is it possible to protect *INDIVIDUAL FILES* against etc-update?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:57:57 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:

>   Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.  It works as designed.  I did
> not overwrite the files, but I'm getting annoyed at having to tell
> etc-update "NO" every few weeks when I run etc-update.  There are
> anywhere from 10 to 40 files to plow through.  And I have a 7-year-old
> PIII Dell as my emergency backup machine, so I repeat the process all
> over again.

I've fixed the dispatch-conf patch in Bug #68618 to work with the latest
dispatch-conf. Add a line to /etc/dispatch-conf to specify files to be
ignored by dispatch-conf like

frozen="/etc/rc.conf /etc/conf.d/clock"

 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68618


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Don't forget that MS-Windows is just a temporary workaround until you can
switch to a GNU system.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Is it possible to protect *INDIVIDUAL FILES* against etc-update?

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 489 bytes --]

On Sunday 15 October 2006 14:27, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> As I've mentioned several times before, there was a patch to
> dispatch-conf to do just this. You added the files you didn't want
> touching, ever, to a line in the config file. Unfortunately, the patch
> hasn't been updated for a couple of years and stopped working a while
> ago. Why not re-open the bug at
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68618

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151685

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Is it possible to protect *INDIVIDUAL FILES* against etc-update?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 668 bytes --]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:16:01 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:

> > As I've mentioned several times before, there was a patch to
> > dispatch-conf to do just this. You added the files you didn't want
> > touching, ever, to a line in the config file. Unfortunately, the patch
> > hasn't been updated for a couple of years and stopped working a while
> > ago. Why not re-open the bug at
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68618  
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151685

I've already posted an updated patch to the original bug.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?
I don't know and I don't care

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Is it possible to protect *INDIVIDUAL FILES* against etc-update?

[Walter Dnes]

<ELVIS>
Thank you, thank you, thank you verrry verrry much
</ELVIS>

  That's *EXACTLY what I'm looking for.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> In linux /sbin/init is Job #1
My musings on technology and security at http://techsec.blog.ca
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list