[scribus] cmake && make && make install

[Jan Schrewe]

On 31 May 2011 23:36, John Culleton <john at wexfordpress.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 04:58:57 pm Jan Schrewe wrote:
> > On 31 May 2011 22:34, Vladimir Savic
> <vladimir.firefly.savic at gmail.com>wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 07:32 -0400, Gregory Pittman wrote:
> > > > On 05/31/2011 05:44 AM, Owen wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 30 May 2011 19:29:30 -0400
> > > > > Gregory Pittman<gregp_ky at yahoo.com>  wrote:
> > > > > Ok, so run make install as root, then that kind of changes all the
> > > > > permissions in the build directory. Maybe no big deal, but my
> > > > > preference is to have user files owned by the user.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, yes, forgot about that since I'm always putting svn versions into
> > > > my /home directory...
> > > >
> > > > Greg
> > >
> > > It is indeed wise to run make as regular user because of system
> security
> > > reasons. But there is another one (I might be wrong on this - in which
> > > case feel free to correct me, please).
> >
> > Spot on.
> >
> > > Make install will dive into folder next in list and do making followed
> > > immediately by install. OK.
> > >
> > > I think I can see the problem in this scenario:
> > > Say you already have some application installed from svn/bzr/git (any
> > > revision control mechanism) and that you pull/update to latest
> > > regularly. And imagine that application isn't "monolithic" (single
> > > binary), but consists of many dynamic libraries/modules called during
> > > run time from main app instead.
> >
> > This is true for all installable parts of the application. Icons, header
> > files and other static stuff gets immediately installed too.
> >
> > > Doing "make" alone will terminate on first appearance of error, but
> your
> > > older installation will not be compromised. But, doing "make install"
> > > will build while it's possible AND install while "make"-ing is
> possible,
> > > leaving you with part of installation updated and with other part,
> > > currently unbuildable one, obsolete. Wouldn't that (possibly) leave you
> > > unable to run your beloved application?
> >
> > You are right. If something blows up during compilation you almost always
> > get an unclean target directory and your application will most likely not
> > run.
> >
> > > Vlada
> >
> > Jan
>
> I defy conventional wisdom on this issue. I set up my svn compiles of 1.4.0
> RC3 and 1.5.0 to compile via scripts that execute overnight. They run as
> root of course. If the compile blows up then the final command to copy the
> executable to /usr/local/bin will also fail because it won't have a file to
> link.
>

If you delete the old installation or always install in a new directory you
are right. If you keep the old install and just run make install and the
build breaks some parts could be new and some parts old and they might not
work together. That is if scribus needs more then just the main executable
to run, i.e. parts of scribus are build as dynamically linked libraries.


>
> Where is the security hole? If someone is clever enough to invade my script
> then they are clever enough to invade my system in other ways. Remember I
> am the only user of my system.
>

They could always invade the scribus svn server. Either by accident or
with malicious intent. Generally: If you run code that exists beyond your
control it is always a good idea to limit the rights of that code. The rest
is a matter of taste, trust and backups ;-)

Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.net/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20110531/02f9c029/attachment.html>