EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  <20092010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  <20092010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: why doesnt the include file install set the file permisions to unwritable?
From: "J. Lewis Muir" <[email protected]>
To: Andrew Johnson <[email protected]>
Cc: "'Core-Talk'" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:14:21 -0600
On 11/19/09 9:43 AM, Andrew Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday 19 November 2009 08:12:45 Eric Norum wrote:
>> All files in the<base>/ include directory on my OS X machine are mode
>> 644, as they should be.
> 
> I think Jeff is really asking why they aren't installed 444, which is a good 
> question which Janet can't explain either (lost in the mists of pre-history, 
> or before CVS anyway).  It should be easy to change the install mode; there 
> are three X_PERMISSIONS variables in configure/CONFIG_COMMON:
> 
>     BIN_PERMISSIONS = 555
>     LIB_PERMISSIONS = 644
>     INSTALL_PERMISSIONS = 644
> 
> Changing the 644 to 444 would then make the installed files read-only.  We 
> don't know why there is a different LIB_PERMISSIONS setting since I would 
> expect libraries to use the BIN_PERMISSIONS, but they don't.  Janet agrees we 
> should fix this.

Hi, Andrew.

To me it doesn't seem so obvious that libraries should use
BIN_PERMISSIONS.  Why should a library be executable?  I understand that
some platforms require libraries to be executable, but in a way, it's a
little strange.  It's not like you can execute a library.  I'm fine with
LIB_PERMISSIONS being different from BIN_PERMISSIONS.  For an example of
what another project does, I looked at /share/mk/bsd.own.mk from the
OpenBSD build system:

  http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/mk/
    bsd.own.mk?rev=1.100&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup

It uses the following default settings ('?=' is a BSD extension meaning
assign if not already defined):

  BINMODE?=    555
  NONBINMODE?= 444
  LIBMODE?=    ${NONBINMODE}

Lewis

References:
why doesnt the include file install set the file permisions to unwritable? Jeff Hill
Re: why doesnt the include file install set the file permisions to unwritable? Eric Norum
Re: why doesnt the include file install set the file permisions to unwritable? Andrew Johnson

Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: why doesnt the include file install set the file permisions to unwritable? Andrew Johnson
Next: Re: why doesnt the include file install set the file permisions to unwritable? Andrew Johnson
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  <20092010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: why doesnt the include file install set the file permisions to unwritable? Andrew Johnson
Next: Re: why doesnt the include file install set the file permisions to unwritable? Andrew Johnson
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  <20092010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 31 Jan 2014 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·