<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hi Ross,<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><span class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Yes, since <span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">copy_license_files() function is executed within the pseudo environement (fakeroot), both </span>os.getuid() and os.getgid() return 0, which resembles to uid and gid of root user. Also, os.chown accepts integer values for 2nd and 3rd arguments.</div><div></div></blockquote></div><br></span>So is there any advantage to using os.getuid() over hardcoding 0:0? It's not like root is going to have a different UID.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></font></span></div></blockquote><div>The intention of using os.getuid() is to avoid writing hardcoded value "0", since os.getuid() return "0" under fakeroot env; if root user is having UID as 0.That's the advantage I can think of.</div><div><br></div><div>The above has been tested with Poky (Jethro version), it worked fine.</div><div>But still, if the opinion is to change os.getuid() and os.getgid() to 0, I will send v2.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Jagadesh</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div class="gmail_extra"></div><div class="gmail_extra">Ross</div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>