Hi,
I have fixed v.transform, a bugfix to get the ASCII header written properly:
West was confused with East value (W greater E problem)
Then I have fixed v.in.dxf -a, the "ORGANIZATION" entry was not
written properly (refused by v.in.ascii).
BTW: The v.transform is great to geocode DXF files in case
they are delivered with xy-coordinates.
Please let me known in case of problems arising from the changes.
Cheers
Markus
I notice that, after building Grass 5 in a non-privileged user account and then doing the "make install" as root, the final files in the /usr/local/grass5 tree are owned by the user who did the build. It's easy enough to fix with a chown -R, but for most installations I think the default should be that files are owned by root after installation, so that the non-privileged account can't accidentally or deliberately modify something. The change is in the "tar xf" call where files are being copied from build location to installation location--should be "tar xfo" to make the untarred files belong to root instead of to the original creator.
----
Hal Mueller hal@seanet.com
Mobile Geographics LLC http://www.mobilegeographics.com/
Seattle, Washington (206) 297-9575
Get CelestNav 2.2.2! http://www.mobilegeographics.com/celestnav/
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Hal Mueller wrote:
I notice that, after building Grass 5 in a non-privileged user
account and then doing the "make install" as root, the final files in
the /usr/local/grass5 tree are owned by the user who did the build.
It's easy enough to fix with a chown -R, but for most installations I
think the default should be that files are owned by root after
installation, so that the non-privileged account can't accidentally
or deliberately modify something. The change is in the "tar xf" call
where files are being copied from build location to installation
location--should be "tar xfo" to make the untarred files belong to
root instead of to the original creator.
Hal,
I don't know of anything in the GRASS5.0 distribution that needs to be
owned by root to work correctly. I think in most systems if something
doesn't need to be owned by root, then it shouldn't be owned by root.
In my setup (Linux 2.4) the /usr/local/grass5 directory itself is owned by
root and users have only read and execute access to anything in the tree.
As a result, the source is protected from tampering, even by the
unpriviledged user who owns the files.
Roger Miller
Lee Wilson and Associates.
At 9:06 AM -0600 10/19/01, Roger Miller wrote:
I don't know of anything in the GRASS5.0 distribution that needs to be
owned by root to work correctly. I think in most systems if something
doesn't need to be owned by root, then it shouldn't be owned by root.
I don't understand this--I thought the purpose of root was to own the system, so that individual users can't tamper.
In my setup (Linux 2.4) the /usr/local/grass5 directory itself is owned by
root and users have only read and execute access to anything in the tree.
As a result, the source is protected from tampering, even by the
unpriviledged user who owns the files.
Who is the owner of the files? What stops that owner from inadvertently damaging the directory?
I can't recall any Unix system I've ever worked on where root _didn't_ routinely own the system and addon software.