On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:36 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:16:00AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:00:32PM -0500, Doug Chapman wrote:
> > > Actually I came up with what I think is a cleaner fix for this. Since
> > > the default file permission on files on vfat are 755 anyway if the
> > > kernel is mode 755 rpm doesn't complain.
> > >
> > > Anybody have thoughts on this specfile change? I build this as a
> > > scratch build on our ia64 koji server and it installs cleanly.
> > >
> > > - Doug
> > >
> > > *** kernel.spec.bad 2008-02-28 19:58:55.000000000 -0500
> > > --- kernel.spec 2008-02-28 21:39:57.000000000 -0500
> > > *************** BuildKernel() {
> > > *** 1301,1306 ****
> > > --- 1301,1310 ----
> > > $CopyKernel $KernelImage \
> > > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{image_install_path}/$InstallName-$KernelVer
> > >
> > > + %ifarch ia64
> > > + chmod 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{image_install_path}/$InstallName-$KernelVer
> > > + %endif
> > > +
> > > mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/modules/$KernelVer
> > > make -s ARCH=$Arch INSTALL_MOD_PATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT modules_install KERNELRELEASE=$KernelVer
> > > %ifarch %{vdso_arches}
> >
> >
> > There are systems with EFI32 and EFI64 out there, that aren't ia64,
> > but that will likewise be dropping files into a vfat file system.
>
> I don't see any problem in unconditionally doing the chmod. Anyone else?
>
I can't actually think of any reason this would break on other
platforms. I added the %ifarch ia64 "just in case" because I really
don't want to be "that ia64 guy who breaks everyone else's stuff".
- Doug
_______________________________________________
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
