Your message dated Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug #43483: section 3.2 should not allow static user ids
(except root=0).
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 25 Aug 1999 15:59:59 +0000
Received: (qmail 18463 invoked from network); 25 Aug 1999 15:59:59 -0000
Received: from quechua.inka.de (HELO mail.inka.de) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 25 Aug 1999 15:59:59 -0000
Received: from dungeon.inka.de
by mail.inka.de with uucp (rmailwrap 0.4)
id 11JfSv-0005Z4-00; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:59:57 +0200
Received: by dungeon.inka.de (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 3B358B781D; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:52:59 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:52:59 +0200
From: Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [proposal] section 3.2 should not allow static user ids (except
root=0).
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i
Package: debian-policy
Version: web page 1999-8-25
Debian allows static user ids. This is not a good idea.
the code necessary to use static id's is pretty small
(several versions on debian-devel 1999-8-25), so every
daemon should do so. this way its easy to use a package
on a non-debian linux where user id's might be different,
and also helps a lot with nfs.
there is a rumor, that lsb (linux standard base) will propose this.
andreas
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 43483-done) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Jun 2001 18:17:00 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jun 13 13:17:00 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 206.180.143.9.adsl.hal-pc.org (speedy.private)
[::ffff:206.180.143.9]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 15AFCN-0003V0-00; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:59 -0500
Received: by speedy.private (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id CC7F6470E; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug #43483: section 3.2 should not allow static user ids (except
root=0).
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This note is being sent as part of a project to clean out old (> 1yr)
debian-policy proposals. If you disagree with action below please
respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to me, so that the discussion may
be carried out publically in debian-policy. Feel free to re-open the
bug while it's being discussed -- I'm not trying to force any
particular disposition, just taking my best shot at resolving dead
issues.
Bug #43483: section 3.2 should not allow static user ids (except root=0).
Summary: (Note that section is now 10.2) We should require apps to
deal with non-statically allocated uids (e.g. no hardcoded
ids). Contention is that this is easy (only a few lines of code). One
seconder, and some discussion about what LSB requires.
Discussion: My (steveg's) reading of the LSB (section X) is that apps
shouldn't require a specific ID, but it also reserves 0-99 for static
allocation by the system (distribution?), so they don't seem to be
absolutely forbidden. I don't think we can forbid them absolutely so
long as accomodate non-free programs. We might want to make it clearer
in policy that they're strongly discouraged. Or this might not be a
matter for policy at all. This probably should be re-submitted with a
specific diff for policy and an example of how much it work it
actually is.
Action: close
