I've never heard of a build script doing that (let alone Synchronet's
Me either... not in 30 odd years... but as I keep saying, it doesn't
mean it
didn't happen. If you extract the tarball, do the do whatever the
hell that
was, its to far back to recall, and the result is you have a raft of
stuff
missing permissions. Then? Shrug.
If it's too far back to remember, and you have no interest in finding out what really happened, then perhaps you should stop pissing on rob's project all the time. Stop calling it synchromess and implying it's crap.
To fair its been dead and buried for some time, only to attain zombie
status
and return. I'm happy referring to it as Synchromess as that's what
it achieves for me. Take or leave it, I'd already left it....
free. It would bother me if some idiot defamed my project because for
what ever reason they stuffed up their file system and decided to blame
it on something completly unrelated.
I expect you didn't bother to investigate what really happened, and just assumed it was synchronet as that is what you happened to be doing at the time.
Spectre wrote to apam <=-
free. It would bother me if some idiot defamed my project because for
what ever reason they stuffed up their file system and decided to blame
it on something completly unrelated.
Ya see this is the completely close minded low grade moronic
response I've come to expect from certain elements. I'm sorry you
expect I'm lying, screwed my own file system deliberately or
accidently or whatever else floats your boat. You do not have to
believe a word I type.
I've come to expect from certain elements. I'm sorry you expect I'm
lying, screwed my own file system deliberately or accidently or whatever else floats your boat. You do not have to believe a word I type.
I've come to expect from certain elements. I'm sorry you expect I'm
lying, screwed my own file system deliberately or accidently or
whatever else floats your boat. You do not have to believe a word I
type.
As someone who doesn't care to engage in any argumentative fashion, I /will/ say there is a part of me that is super curious how in the heck your file system/permissions/whatever to so borked here, I can't find a single step in the install process that would cause something like that.
I've never heard of a build script doing that (let alone Synchronet's
Me either... not in 30 odd years... but as I keep saying, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you extract the tarball, do the do whatever the hell that was, its to far back to recall, and the result is you have a raft of stuff missing permissions. Then? Shrug.
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital man (rob)
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital man (rob)
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do that?
Spectre wrote to Digital Man <=-
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital man (rob)
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do
that?
Digital Man wrote to Spectre <=-
Re: Synchronet issues
By: Spectre to Digital Man on Fri Oct 28 2022 05:02 am
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital man (rob)
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do that?
Maybe you're jealous of the *real* SBBS? <j/k>
More seriously, I've noticed from searching through your posts
here that you seem enjoy disparaging very successful software and
the organizations that created them with derogatory nicknames.
You appear to get some kind of thrill out of that. Why? Maybe
your therapist can tell us. --
digital man (rob)
I've never heard of a build script doing that (let alone
Synchronet's build script doing that). I've set up Synchronet
in Linux myself and haven't seen that happen. I'd have to
guess something else must have done that..
Ni> I've never heard of a build script doing that (let alone Synchronet's
Me either... not in 30 odd years... but as I keep saying, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you extract the tarball, do the do whatever the hell that was, its to far back to recall, and the result is you have a raft of stuff missing permissions. Then? Shrug.
As someone who doesn't care to engage in any argumentative fashion, I
/will/ say there is a part of me that is super curious how in the heck
your file system/permissions/whatever to so borked here, I can't find
a single step in the install process that would cause something like
that.
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound
like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS.
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do that?
Tracker1 wrote to Spectre <=-
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound
like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS.
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do that?
Maybe you're just psychologically incapable of admitting fault,
or that you might, possibly, be wrong and instead make asinine
childish statements about someone else's work to sate your own
ego?
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound
like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital
man (rob)
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do
that?
That's the question we are all asking you to answer. We don't
understand why you'd do that either.
It does a chmod towards the end... but would have to do something weird with the make target to do anything destructive.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Synchronet issues
By: Gamgee to Spectre on Thu Oct 27 2022 08:12 pm
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound
like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital
man (rob)
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do
that?
That's the question we are all asking you to answer. We don't
understand why you'd do that either.
I feel like there's some lack of understanding of OS fundamentals
or something on his part going on here.. If it were me and that
happened to me, I'd probably try it again a couple times to see
if the problem is repeatable, and if it is, I'd probably ask
questions and try to track it down rather than blaming
Synchronet. Nobody else has reported this problem, so I don't
think it's a Synchronet issue.
It does a chmod towards the end... but would have to do something
weird with the make target to do anything destructive.
I saw you had mentioned chown in another message.. I suppose there
may be a possibility of something weird happening. It seems he's
making a big deal of it though.. I'm not sure it could really do
anything too destructive.
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: | 557 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 59:05:34 |
| Calls: | 10,381 |
| Files: | 5 |
| Messages: | 359,996 |