| 2 | | I've looked into the RPM packaging background on this issue a bit, for the |
| 3 | | record here are the details discussed in the proposed change, just in case |
| 4 | | we have to do it that way: |
| | 2 | I've looked into the RPM packaging background on |
| | 3 | this issue a bit, for the record here are the |
| | 4 | details discussed in the proposed change, |
| | 5 | just in case we have to do it that way: |
| 56 | | So as the touch in the build area (which is when the %install section is executed) |
| 57 | | is unlikely going to have the proper set of permissions that we want to |
| 58 | | have on the final install destination, we'd also need to add an %attr or |
| 59 | | %defattr% directive to the %files section to manage proper install |
| 60 | | permissions. |
| | 60 | So as the touch in the build area (which is when the |
| | 61 | %install section is executed) is unlikely going to |
| | 62 | have the proper set of permissions that we want to |
| | 63 | have on the final install destination, we'd also need |
| | 64 | to add an %attr or %defattr% directive to the %files |
| | 65 | section to manage proper install permissions. |
| 62 | | The %files section will pull into the binary RPM package from |
| 63 | | the build directory. So the %files section would need to make sure to use |
| 64 | | a permission directive for the empty log %file using%attr and %defattr |
| 65 | | when deploying the package on the destination: |
| | 67 | The %files section will pull into the binary RPM package |
| | 68 | from the build directory. So the %files section would |
| | 69 | need to make sure to use a permission directive for the |
| | 70 | empty log %file using%attr and %defattr when deploying |
| | 71 | the package on the destination: |
