| 1 |
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 12:16:24 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> While you're touching this, could you improve this part a bit: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> # maybe the user is screwing around with perms they shouldnt #289168 |
| 5 |
> if [[ ! -r ${base} ]] ; then |
| 6 |
> eerror "Unable to read ${base} -- perms are screwed ?" |
| 7 |
> die "fix your system" |
| 8 |
> fi |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I understand frustration caused by weird things people are doing with |
| 11 |
> systems, but sometimes it can be even caused by some tool's error or |
| 12 |
> whatever. IMHO these are not good error messages. I'd prefer something |
| 13 |
> like this: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> # Make sure we don't hit a problem with permissions, bug #289168 |
| 16 |
> if [[ ! -r ${base} ]] ; then |
| 17 |
> eerror "Unable to read ${base}. Please run chmod 755 ${base}" |
| 18 |
> eerror "and try again." |
| 19 |
> die "unable to read ${base}" |
| 20 |
> fi |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
the issue is in basic assumptions. you're assuming that -r means a chmod will |
| 23 |
fix it because the error is due to missing +r bits. i make no assumptions and |
| 24 |
merely propose the most likely problem category (missing +r bits). a subtle, |
| 25 |
but important, distinction (at least in my mind). |
| 26 |
-mike |
Archives