- From: Thomas Bishop <
>
- To:
- Subject: [[chef-dev]] CHEF-1621 - "recursive" attribute on "directory" resource does not apply users and groups to entire path
- Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 16:22:31 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=GvA2zaC8XccIcMWi7y1TPAEE4P7iK+a2Do3WjJE8DkTs6X2Y640xxWAB+ZqeOnPbDS aPy6Qu/rKrnBZ5OPsDfN5TpnJJIsLe6neVd3c9x8cbR6huth//DbT1a7PalmfzrXziKE vADyPSP4z8YHxLAfrmVX3xNavocwC3X7D6Wic=
Hi folks,
I was discussing this ticket with Dan DeLeo on irc and we thought it
would be a good idea to get feedback from a larger audience.
Have a look at the example at
http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-1621.
The user was expecting:
777 ldm:ldm /data
777 ldm:ldm /data/realtime
777 ldm:ldm /data/realtime/fetched
777 ldm:ldm /data/realtime/fetched/radar
Here's what chef did:
755 root:root /data
755 root:root /data/realtime
755 root:root /data/realtime/fetched
777 ldm:ldm /data/realtime/fetched/radar
The current chef behavior makes sense to me. Here are a couple of reasons
why:
1. As the directory being defined is /data/realtime/fetched/radar, I
would not expect chef to touch the ownership or permissions on
anything above it. I would however expect chef to create the required
parent directories if they did not exist in order to satisfy the
desired state.
2. If chef modified the permissions/ownership for the entire
structure, this could have adverse effects if there were additional
directories defined under /data, or /data/realtime or
/data/realtime/fetched. If /data/foo existed for example. In my
opinion, this would be counterintuitive behavior.
I agree with the ticket submitter that the docs aren't 100% clear on
this and should probably be updated.
I would love to hear additional thoughts on this.
-Tommy
- [[chef-dev]] CHEF-1621 - "recursive" attribute on "directory" resource does not apply users and groups to entire path, Thomas Bishop, 10/02/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.