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  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 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: why doesnt the include file install set the file permisions to unwritable?
From: "J. Lewis Muir" <jlmuir@anl.gov>
To: Andrew Johnson <anj@aps.anl.gov>
Cc: "'Core-Talk'" <Core-Talk@aps.anl.gov>, tech-talk@aps.anl.gov
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 
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 
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 ·