What was this "observation" exactly? I'll look again through the history
It's so far back now, I don't even recall.. but the upshot is, somewhere between it trying to compile and copy stuff to whatever the destination was, I ended up with a lot of screwed permissions across the system.
Wow, then you managed to do that yourself: Nothing in Synchronet
changes ownership or permissions of existing directories or files.
So I've heard, however it was the compile script that did it.. in the words >> of Ripley, believe it or not.
Yup, I don't believe it.
On 10/25/22 11:29, Digital Man wrote:
Wow, then you managed to do that yourself: Nothing in Synchronet
changes ownership or permissions of existing directories or files.
The nix install script/make-install chown's the /sbbs directory to the current user:group towards the end.
If he did something weird with the base path make is using, it *could*
screw something up.
Digital Man wrote to Tracker1 <=-
Spectre said he used a tarball file, which doesn't use the install/GNUmakefile you're referring to. --
digital man (rob)
Digital Man wrote to Tracker1 <=-
Spectre said he used a tarball file, which doesn't use the install/GNUmakefile you're referring to. --
Would accidentally doing some/all of the steps as su cause an issue like that (I forget which user he said owned the files, if he did)?
Spectre said he used a tarball file, which doesn't use the install/GNUmakefile you're referring to.
Well, no need to be insulting about it. It's arguably the most used BBS package in use today.
Have you ever brought up this installer problem for discussion?
Haven't ever heard anybody else say they've seen that happen. Ever. <SHRUG>
As you say, SHRUG.. I did mention it in passing some time back... got the you must be doing something wrong...
but over clean install or existing
server it ate the thing alive... at this point it doesn't really matter I'm not trying again. :) Since then SynchroMess has been my name for it...
Did you mention it (in passing or otherwise) in any Synchronet support forum? It certainly doesn't sound familiar to me.
Did you mention it (in passing or otherwise) in any Synchronet support forum? It certainly doesn't sound familiar to me.
No, I've not been near any Synchro support forums. Just mentioned it here, after all it just went into the to hard basket, not wanting to add any other risk to my single server setup.
Okay, but mentioning it here (rather than an actual Synchronet support forum) isn't likely to resolve the problem, so you weren't really serious about finding and fixing the issue in the first place. Just something to complain about.
Okay, but mentioning it here (rather than an actual Synchronet support forum) isn't likely to resolve the problem, so you weren't really serious about finding and fixing the issue in the first place. Just something to complain about.
I did make the point, a fix was off the table, and if I recall right, the original was merely an observation of what I'd been poking about with and what the results were.
No real complaint as such.
I gave it a go, ran
enough repair to keep the system running, gave it a second go with the same result, and thats it. I'm not interested in trying any further with my limited resources. Unfortunately one of the results was the "true believers" denied the observations and wanted to go to war over it. Not just take it as an observation and move on.
Digital Man wrote to Spectre <=-
I gave it a go, ran
enough repair to keep the system running, gave it a second go with the same result, and thats it. I'm not interested in trying any further with my limited resources. Unfortunately one of the results was the "true believers" denied the observations and wanted to go to war over it. Not just take it as an observation and move on.
What was this "observation" exactly? I'll look again through the
history of your posts in this echo, but so far, I haven't seen
it.
What is "Synchromess" then?
What was this "observation" exactly? I'll look again through the history
I may be able to answer this, as it was me who was questioning him previously on what happened, at least until he got all butt-hurt and didn't want to talk about it any more.
What is "Synchromess" then?
The result.
What was this "observation" exactly? I'll look again through the history
It's so far back now, I don't even recall.. but the upshot is, somewhere between it trying to compile and copy stuff to whatever the destination was, I ended up with a lot of screwed permissions across the system.
What is "Synchromess" then?
You should call that "Spectremess" in that case, since you made it.
Wow, then you managed to do that yourself: Nothing in Synchronet changes ownership or permissions of existing directories or files. -- digital
What is "Synchromess" then?
> The result.
You should call that "Spectremess" in that case, since you made it.
Chuckle, couldn't have done it without you..
Wow, then you managed to do that yourself: Nothing in Synchronet changes ownership or permissions of existing directories or files. -- digital
So I've heard, however it was the compile script that did it.. in the words of Ripley, believe it or not.
Yup, I don't believe it. -- digital man (rob)
Spectre wrote to Digital Man <=-
What is "Synchromess" then?
The result.
You should call that "Spectremess" in that case, since you made it.
Chuckle, couldn't have done it without you..
Wow, then you managed to do that yourself: Nothing in Synchronet changes ownership or permissions of existing directories or files.
So I've heard, however it was the compile script that did it.. in
the words of Ripley, believe it or not.
| Sysop: | Chris Crash |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huntington Beach, CA. |
| Users: | 577 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 62:07:23 |
| Calls: | 10,734 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 5 |
| Messages: | 442,639 |