On Jun 14, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 14 June 2013 at 16:17, Simon Urbanek wrote: > | I think it would be better to have a bit more sane handling of this. The > decision is rarely at the install time of the package -- e.g. did you adjust > the flag for INSTALL in update.packages based on the permissions? Otherwise > it fails the next time and confuses the hell out of users! Although it's > certainly a step up from the previously hard-coded default, I would argue > that the most desired behavior is to follow the permissions already set up. > If the library is setup to be group-writable then the package should be > installed group-writable. The point is that anything else makes less sense - > the user can still use rm -rf and re-install it even if the package is not > writable. It's just update.packages() that fails. > > One could also consider respecting the umask which is ignored in the > older behaviour, ignore in what was just committed, and ignored in what you > suggest here. Not exactly right either. >
Agreed. > But up until right now I could not update a package a colleague installed, > and vice versa -- unless we sudo. > But you should be able to simply removing it, and re-installing, right? (This is not to suggest it as a work-around, but rather to make sure we're taking about the same situation). > The patch improves on this, and the only other comment was a 'thumbs up' from > Andreas Leha who described an elaborate workaround scheme required by the > existing shortcoming. > The implementation of the group-wrtable part of is great improvement, but my point is that this doesn't solve the update.packages() problem that triggered the fix, because the flag is ignored then: $ bin/R CMD INSTALL --group-writable ~/develop/R/packages/base64enc_0.1-0.tar.gz $ ls -ld library/base64enc drwxrwxr-x 10 urbanek admin 340 Jun 14 16:48 library/base64enc $ sudo -u user2 bin/R -e 'update.packages(ask=F)' $ ls -ld library/base64enc drwxr-xr-x 11 user2 admin 374 Jun 14 16:49 library/base64enc $ bin/R -e 'update.packages(ask=F)' [...] mv: rename /Volumes/Data/Builds/R-builds/rd/library/base64enc to /Volumes/Data/Builds/R-builds/rd/library/00LOCK-base64enc/base64enc: Permission denied Warning in file.copy(f, instdir, TRUE) : problem copying ./NAMESPACE to /Volumes/Data/Builds/R-builds/rd/library/base64enc/NAMESPACE: Permission denied Warning in file.copy(f, instdir, TRUE) : problem copying ./NEWS to /Volumes/Data/Builds/R-builds/rd/library/base64enc/NEWS: Permission denied Warning in file(file, ifelse(append, "a", "w")) : cannot open file '/Volumes/Data/Builds/R-builds/rd/library/base64enc/DESCRIPTION': Permission denied Error in file(file, ifelse(append, "a", "w")) : cannot open the connection ERROR: installing package DESCRIPTION failed for package ‘base64enc’ So, as I was suggesting to use the patch to implement a more durable solution which doesn't need an extra flag but just checks the permissions on the library. While at it, it could also consult umask and thus be a good citizen ... Cheers, Simon ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
