On Nov 28, 2011, at 6:42 AM, email@example.com wrote:
Speaking only for myself, a symlink cannot have ownership and permissions of its own. That’s why it’s shown as mode 777 in both of the “before” and “after” blocks. So, this is a non-issue. POSIX file semantics may be tripping you up, but that’s not a problem with Chef.
Perhaps Chef could be more explicit about testing for symlinks and bombing out if you try to apply operations to them which should be applied only to regular files or directories, but I think the better solution is that you should write your cookbooks and recipes in such a way that this does not become a problem.
It’s hard for a program to know what path should be applied to a command used with a relative path, unless you introduce the concept of an explicit current working directory. Otherwise, what you think is your current working directory may in fact not match at all, and therefore the behaviour of the program could be very unexpected.
So, I agree with your comment that this needs some fleshing out in the provider.
I’ve gone over this one a couple of times and I’m still not quite understanding what the problem is or what should be done about it. But maybe that’s just me and I haven’t have enough coffee yet this morning.
what kind of fixes would you accept ?
For #1, I’m not seeing that anything in Chef is broken. For #2, I think the provider should be fleshed out, but in the meanwhile maybe Chef could be more explicit in bombing out with an appropriately descriptive error. For #3, I need to understand the problem better.
Brad Knowles firstname.lastname@example.org
SAGE Level IV, Chef Level 0.0.1