Re: teacup/teapot install question

> After some more thought overnight, I'm thinking maybe
there is a simpler
> solution that provides some flexibility where needed.

> Tm packages don't need to be executable, relying on the
package requires
> to get you what you need.  Tm packages also don't need
to be writable by
> anyone except maybe the user that added it into the
repository.   So
> something like 444 or 644 should be the default.

> Tm Applications on the other hand should be executable
by default, maybe
> 555 or 755.  Teacup should be able to tell if a tm
application is a
> writable starkit and set the permissions to 777.

We can detect 'starkit'. Whether the application wrapped
inside will want to
write to itself is a different matter however.

> Zip packages and applications should retain the
permissions that the
> files had prior to being wrapped by teapot-pkg.  When
teacup unzip's
...
> 755.  If the permissions where retained this gives me
total control over
> permissions in a zip package/application.

> Given all of that, it looks like teacup and
teapot-admin would not need
> any options to specify permissions when adding
packages/applications to
> a repository.

> I have not put a lot of thought into how
practical/possible it is for
> the zip files to retain the permissions.  In theory it
sounds
> plausible.  I may have over-simplified the tm
packages/applications but
> I can't think of how others would be using them beyond
that.

A quick look, zip files have some permission information per
file. I am
currently not using that info, i.e. I ignore it during
zipping (setting a
fixed value) and unzipping.

I will have to look at bit deeper to see if the permissions
is enough for
unix, although it should be, and how the data is coded.
Together with the
'file attributes' command your proposal should be feasible.
Implementing it
will take a bit longer than just slapping a standard set of
permissions on
all files


--
	Andreas Kupries <andreaskActiveState.com>
	Developer  http://www.ActiveState.com

	Tel: +1 778-786-1122

_______________________________________________
ActiveTcl mailing list
ActiveTcllistserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http:/
/listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Andreas Kupries wrote:
>
> We can detect 'starkit'. Whether the application
wrapped inside will want to
> write to itself is a different matter however.
>
>   
I'm not sure if this is what you meant or not.  I was
thinking of simply 
using the following from the starkit header:

starkit::header mk4 -readonly  <-- default permissions
555 or 755
starkit::header mk4 -nocommit  <-- default permissions
777

I guess I wasn't so much concerned if the application will
ever try to 
write to itself, more if it can write to itself.


NOTICE:  This email message is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________
ActiveTcl mailing list
ActiveTcllistserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http:/
/listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs