Re: [PATCH] build fix when source tree is fully read-only

["Andrew John Hughes" <gnu_andrew at member dot fsf dot org>]

On 28/02/2008, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> >The problem here seems odd to me.  Why are these directories and their
>  >contents being created as read-only?  If that itself is a build issue,
>  >should it not be corrected rather than its result (giving an
>  >unnecessary chmod on all runs)?  If the tree has been changed manually
>  >by the user to read only, then, as Andrew says, we shouldn't override
>  >that.
>
>
> When I take a snapshot from the repository (from any repository I build
>  from, not just gcc), I change the source tree with 'chmod -R a-w' to as
>  much as possible prevent accidental modification (I retain ownership of
>  the files, though, to not overly complicate eventual fixing of the
>  snapshot itself, i.e. in order to allow a reference build - without any
>  patches applied - to succeed, which is exactly the case here).
>
>  This generally doesn't represent a problem anywhere (though there
>  are occasional breakages introduced which usually face no resistance
>  to fix). As described in an earlier mail, what the patch changes (and
>  what needs to change in some way, even if the patch is unacceptable
>  in its current shape for whatever reason) is not the (intentional by the
>  user) attributes of the source tree, but the attributes of the copy of it
>  made in the build tree. That is, if it is necessary to use 'cp -pR' to
>  create that copy, then deleting the copy must account for the
>  potential effect this has.
>
>  But as I also explained, the make rule in question is flawed anyway,
>  as it isn't properly dealing with being interrupted (e.g. user pressing
>  Ctrl-C, but also, as in the case given, failure of part of the rule) in
>  the middle. So perhaps one of you wants to fix the entire issue
>  rather than just the immediate issue of the build breaking?
>
>
>  Jan
>
>

Where does this copy take place? I don't see it as part of the rule.
I agree that the interruption needs to be handled better.  That single
rule should probably be split into three or four separate rules.
-- 
Andrew :-)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net