On 23/08/10 19:53, Gaetan Bisson wrote: > [2010-08-23 19:15:13 +0100] Magnus Therning: >> Is this *really* bad, in fact so bad that upstream should be told about it, >> since it doesn't only affect packagers? (AFAICS the build system >> provided by >> upstream only works for individual users installing a personal build.) > > It's not that bad: at build time, after the main binary has been built, > it is run to generate a configuration file - and this binary happens to > always create ~/.program.d/ when it doesn't exist. Now, during the build > process, this directory is never actually used and remains empty until > the end of it (so you can build as nobody and then install system-wide). I would still argue that it's completely bonkers behaviour! I would *never* expect that building a piece of software would modify my $HOME. I've also never ever heard of such behaviour before. > I really can't blame them for assuming $HOME is writable (both normally, > and at build time, since it simplifies their build process); I see this > as a rather unfortunate interaction with makechrootpkg. I blame them for writing in $HOME! From the sounds of it they are just lazy; there should be a command line switch to control whether the directory (~/.program.d/) is created. Anyway, I can understand *your* actions: modifying Arch stuff so that you can build in a chroot rather than apply a patch to the source. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
