On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:09:31AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > First of all Archaic, I would like to point out that your message > was so perfectly stated that it really made me think about the big > picture here. Well done, sir.
Thank you. > The crux of the issue seems to be Gerard's desire to eliminate any > dependency, or for that matter, even any thought to building on top > of LFS. He's the boss, if this is his desires, then we have to do > what is necessary. That was a decision made based on the threads linked to in the user/group bug. That isn't to say the decision has to be final, though at the time there was really not much of an argument against it. There always seems to be more to an argument once we actually try to implement things. :) > There is no harm in creating groups which have no users assigned to > the group. There's no security, nor any other implications I can > think of. To not anticipate that LFS will be build upon, in whatever > fashion, be it a server or desktop capacity, and not having the > groups on the system with appropriate Udev rules to create device > nodes appropriate to the use of those nodes, is simply wrong. Here is a classic perspectival difference. I see the repetition that one would go through in adding specialized rules (even a printer rule is specialized as only one box of many of mine have a printer) as being a perfect opportunity for enforcement of previously introduced concepts. I'm sure I'm not the only one who completely disregarded inittab and udev rules (and likely other config files) where the defaults satisfied my needs. I'm not talking about the reader gaining expertise here, but rather familiarity with a system component. > Device nodes are going to be created upon the kernel's discovery > of the hardware. Do we want these device nodes to be created > correctly, or not? If I have a sound card that is detected, but no software to play something, I cannot see how the device would be created incorrectly. The major/minor is still setup properly. And now that I think about a previous post that referred to cluttering of the /dev tree, the whole intention of devices is that they are not referenced by name, but by major and minor. While this is an ideal and not a reality at this point, I cannot see moving in that direction being a bad thing. I am not striving for minimalism, but rather for redundancy for the sake of learning and I sometimes struggle with the different perspective a new reader has versus my own. Like you said in the thread about cracklib, it's good to have these discussions regardless of which way we ultimately go. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
