> On Jun 25, joost witteveen wrote
> > The only problem with this is that if there are setuid binaries involved
> > in the debian/rules binary process, they will not use the LD_PRELOAD
> > stuff, and things may go wrong. (But as long as those binaries are
> > setuid root, they wouldn't need the libfakeroot).
>
> a) are there any suid binaries used when compiling ? i looked at my
> /var/log/suid.today, but i didn't find any binaries that might be
> usefull with compiling.
Well _I_ don't use any setuid binaries, but I'm just saying
that _if_ somebody were to use setuid binaries, that may be a problem.
I don't think this is a big problem, though!
> b) will you have to modify dpkg for the build process, or will it use
> the same trap lib ? will you use a file and read / write to this file or
> a daemon or so ? (if you can trap tar the same way you can trap chown,
> you will not need these special function tar has).
Quoting from the email you were replying to:
joost> Yeah, I like that: wrap chown (and friends) _and_ stat(): then
joost> the install, chown, etc stuff in the debian/rules will go
joost> right as well as the final tar!
Does that answer your question? (I think so, but I may have misunderstood
your question).
> additional problems you might have construction this wrapper lib. :-)
Point b) is just something that makes it easier, and point a)
only shows that my setuid problem isn't that big at all -- so what
are your "additional problems"?
--
joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
