Your message dated Mon, 04 Nov 2002 07:55:27 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line (no subject)
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.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Nov 2002 09:31:03 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 02 03:31:03 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from pool-68-160-52-158.bos.east.verizon.net (beth.swift.xxx)
[68.160.52.158] (root)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 187ucQ-0006A4-00; Sat, 02 Nov 2002 03:31:02 -0600
Received: from alum.mit.edu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by beth.swift.xxx (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-6) with ESMTP id gA29Uv1L016452
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 04:30:57 -0500
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: general: files in /usr/share should be world-readable
X-Debbugs-CC: Matt Swift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:30:57 -0500
From: Matthew Swift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailscanner: clean (beth.swift.xxx)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0
tests=MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_3,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: general
Version: 20021102
Severity: normal
Because files in /usr/share are expected to be shared, they should all
be world-readable.
It is unnecessarily inconvenient, for example, to accommodate
unreadable files when mirroring /usr/share or a portion of it to
another machine. I bet there are other good reasons, since it seems
like a sound principle.
I do not notice this requirement in the FHS, but it seems to me a
reasonable requirement for Debian, which could easily be realized with
the level of automation that the packaging process has
On my system today, the following files in /usr/share are not
world-readable:
% find /usr/share -not -perm -o=r
/usr/share/doc/squid/examples/squid.conf
/usr/share/emacs21/site-lisp/tdtd/install.log
/usr/share/emacs21/site-lisp/psgml/install.log
/usr/share/emacs21/site-lisp/ilisp/install.log
/usr/share/emacs21/site-lisp/debview/install.log
/usr/share/emacs21/site-lisp/eudc/install.log
/usr/share/emacs21/site-lisp/gnuserv/install.log
/usr/share/emacs21/site-lisp/python2.2-elisp/install.log
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Kernel Version: Linux beth 2.4.19 #1 Mon Aug 26 00:56:45 EDT 2002 i686 Pentium
III (Coppermine) GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 167422-done) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Nov 2002 12:55:38 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Nov 04 06:55:37 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from pool-68-160-52-158.bos.east.verizon.net (beth.swift.xxx)
[68.160.52.158] (root)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 188glU-0003lH-00; Mon, 04 Nov 2002 06:55:36 -0600
Received: from beth.swift.xxx ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by beth.swift.xxx (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-6) with ESMTP id gA4CtU1M001369
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 07:55:30 -0500
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by beth.swift.xxx (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-6) id gA4CtUWm001367;
Mon, 4 Nov 2002 07:55:30 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Matt Swift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 07:55:27 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2
(i386-debian-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailscanner: clean (beth.swift.xxx)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0
tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,SUBJ_MISSING,USER_AGENT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
On the advice in this thread, I have filed (or will soon file) related
bug reports under debian-policy, lintian, debhelper, and the
individual packages mentioned.
