[VOTE] Re: directory-handling with nALFS

Reinhard bookreader at gmx.com
Sat Apr 3 03:59:56 PST 2004

On Saturday 03 April 2004 08:14, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Certainly the use of the "parents" option is not an obvious way to
> document that a particular mkdir element should ignore an existing
> directory, but it's what we have today and it's compatible with all
> other ALFS implementations. Implementing something in nALFS that allows
> the official profile to work differently that in any other ALFS
> implementation is not a good solution.

I'm sorry, that you think that way.
I thought, it's not an error if something already exists, what I like to 

> As it stands today, any user who wishes can very easily copy the mkdir.c
> handler source code, add a new option to specify that mkdir should
> ignore existing directories, and set the "priority" field so their
> customized mkdir handler gets used instead of the standard one. I know
> that this is not documented anywhere except in the mailing list archives
> at this point, 

If I have to change nALFS just for my needs, then I see no benefit using it.
Then I could reach the same using Makefiles and don't have to patch something 
"just for me".

> but that's because James and I have had more important
> things to do than work on the nALFS hacker's guide :-) 

Of cause! I'm quite sure, that you have a lot to do.
I didn't expect you doing it.
I just want to know, if I work it out and send you the patch - are you willing 
to apply it? - no more.

> For the future, this will be a very common way for people to "tweak" the
> handlers to do what they want, but they will have to know that by doing so
> their profiles become (even slightly) incompatible with any standard ALFS
> implementation.

That's definitly not what I want. Therefor I'm here for discussion, cause I 
see things that could be improved (inside the standard) and its only the 
question, whether such changes are acceptable to integrate into the standard.

One question to the DTD (cvs):
the stageinfo has the element shell, but it is not used in the official 
profiles, when entering chroot-jail.
Is this an overseen, or is it not necessary, add the shell. 
Will the statically build shell be used by default?

Kind regards


P.S. I found a little tipo in syntax_doc
Element <move>

is:		... sub-element option is an option of the mkdir command.
should be: ... sub-element option is an option of the mv command.

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list