pointless -R on chapter 5 chown?

Alex Groenewoud krisp at wanadoo.nl
Thu Jan 23 10:25:47 PST 2003


Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> That's the exact reason I kept the -R switch: in case you create
> more than just the static directory.

Well, as this isn't obvious, maybe add the following explanation to 
the book:

  <para>The -R switch is added to the command just in case you've
  already created files or subdirs in $LFS/static.</para>

But why would anyone want to put something in the $LFS/static 
directory besides the static binaries?  And does anyone does this?

Cameron Thorne wrote:
> Between mkdir $LFS/static and chown -R $LFS/static I usually copy 
> my source tarballs to $LFS/static/src

Of course, you can do that.  But what do you think to gain by 
chowning the source tarballs to user lfs?  All you need is to be 
able to read them.  You should not even /want/ to have write access 
to them, simply to protect yourself from blunders.

Also for most other things there's no need to chown them to lfs to 
be able to use them.  Only if the reader has ahead of time created 
$LFS/static/bin and the like, she would need to chown them to lfs.  
But if she did create these things, she probably knew what she was 
doing and she herself will think of using -R.  If she didn't know 
what she was doing, she should /not/ be helped in a way that she 
probably doesn't understand: let her stumble, so she can learn.

Alex
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list