#89: Implemented packArchivePosixMask mechanism

[norru]

Hi,

I managed to implement a possible solution at #89.

The following setting implements the desired behaviour

packArchivePosixMask := posixMaskFromFilesystem

The following setting implements the default behaviour

packArchivePosixMask := posixMaskFromBinPath(Pack.packTargetDir.value / Pack.packDir.value)

The following setting prevents masks from being set in the archive

packArchivePosixMask := posixMaskNone

It should be ready for you to review, adjust and integrate

Cheers
Nico

[xerial]

Sorry for the delay of response. I have failed to notice this PR.
I'll review the commits.

Thanks

[xerial]

This function is not used.

[xerial]

For your purpose, I think having a setting packArchiveFilePermission, whose type would be Function[File, Option[Int]] or PartialFunction[File, Int], is sufficient.

And the default flow is simple as follows:

1. If the file is inside bin folder, its permission will be 755
2. Otherwise, use the same flag with the file system.

Rather than defining multiple functions (posixXXX, posixNone, etc.) for setting posix permission, it would be better to define a function as follows (pseudo code):

  def defaultFilePermission(file:File) : Function[File, Int] = {
     case f if (f is under bin folder) =>  Integer.parseInt("0755", 8)
     case other => posixMaskOfTheFileSysetem(other)
  }

  posixArchiveFilePermission := defaultFilePermission

And also, rather than using Int, allowing to use String (posix mask string)] might be easier to use.

[norru]

I'll have a look.

The functions are provided to be assigned as posixArchiveFilePermission
predefined settings.

Octal mask definition tends to be more common than "rwxrwx" style. Is that
whay you intended?

On 9 November 2015 at 00:28, Taro L. Saito [email protected] wrote:

For your purpose, I think having a setting packArchiveFilePermission,
whose type would be Function[File, Option[Int]] or PartialFunction[File,
Int], is sufficient.

And the default flow is simple as follows:

1. If the file is inside bin folder, its permission will be 755
2. Otherwise, use the same flag with the file system.

Rather than defining multiple functions (posixXXX, posixNone, etc.) for
setting posix permission, it would be better to define a function as
follows (pseudo code):

def defaultFilePermission(file:File) : Function[File, Int] = {
case f if (f is under bin folder) => Integer.parseInt("0755", 8)
case other => posixMaskOfTheFileSysetem(other)
}

posixArchiveFilePermission := defaultFilePermission

Rather than using Int, allowing to use String (posix mask string)] might
be easier to use.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#90 (comment).

Cheers,
Nico

[norru]

When you say posix mask string, do you mean the octal representation of
the mask, as in "0755"? If it's the case, it sounds good to me.
Ta

On 9 November 2015 at 10:56, Nicola Orrù [email protected] wrote:

I'll have a look.

The functions are provided to be assigned as posixArchiveFilePermission
predefined settings.

Octal mask definition tends to be more common than "rwxrwx" style. Is that
whay you intended?

On 9 November 2015 at 00:28, Taro L. Saito [email protected]
wrote:

For your purpose, I think having a setting packArchiveFilePermission,
whose type would be Function[File, Option[Int]] or PartialFunction[File,
Int], is sufficient.

And the default flow is simple as follows:

1. If the file is inside bin folder, its permission will be 755
2. Otherwise, use the same flag with the file system.

Rather than defining multiple functions (posixXXX, posixNone, etc.) for
setting posix permission, it would be better to define a function as
follows (pseudo code):

def defaultFilePermission(file:File) : Function[File, Int] = {
case f if (f is under bin folder) => Integer.parseInt("0755", 8)
case other => posixMaskOfTheFileSysetem(other)
}

posixArchiveFilePermission := defaultFilePermission

Rather than using Int, allowing to use String (posix mask string)] might
be easier to use.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#90 (comment).

Cheers,
Nico

Cheers,
Nico

[xerial]

do you mean the octal representation of the mask, as in "0755"

Yes. And it would be better to allow "755" too.

[norru]

Ok, sounds sensible :)

On 9 November 2015 at 20:59, Taro L. Saito [email protected] wrote:

do you mean the octal representation of the mask, as in "0755"
Yes. And it would be better to allow "755" too.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#90 (comment).

Cheers,
Nico