From d9f2c29d2b7d147516c25a09d08e6801376fa32d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 10:15:32 -0400 Subject: comment --- ...ent_1_b1ffea063d9928889df17d9a8f3e8a5d._comment | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/isCopyOf_does_not_work_on_nfs_filesystem/comment_1_b1ffea063d9928889df17d9a8f3e8a5d._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/isCopyOf_does_not_work_on_nfs_filesystem/comment_1_b1ffea063d9928889df17d9a8f3e8a5d._comment b/doc/forum/isCopyOf_does_not_work_on_nfs_filesystem/comment_1_b1ffea063d9928889df17d9a8f3e8a5d._comment new file mode 100644 index 00000000..935b23b9 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/isCopyOf_does_not_work_on_nfs_filesystem/comment_1_b1ffea063d9928889df17d9a8f3e8a5d._comment @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 1""" + date="2019-10-01T14:06:35Z" + content=""" +Your NFS server must have root squash enabled then. So any propellor +properties that try to set the owner will fail (File.ownerGroup). + +It's entirely reasonable for properties to need to set the owner of a file. +Many properties make files owned by a specific user and having them +squashed to "nobody" would break their purpose. + +There's only one property in propellor that currently uses File.isCopyOf, +and that property is in fact installing a user's configuration file, which +needs to be owned by that user. So changing that property's behavior is +out. + +So your options are, disable the NFS root squash, or avoid using propellor +properties that set file ownership. If you wanted to make a variant of +isCopyOf that didn't preserve permissions, we could perhaps look at adding +that to propellor. +"""]] -- cgit v1.2.3