Turbo wrote:
> What if I do it the '{user|group}add' way when I change the files? (I haven't
> looked into it yet, but...). I prefer not to start doing systemcall's, exec's
> etc, if I can avoid it...
First...
If you need to call another executable (which you _must_ in this case), you
should use
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Oh for FSCKS sake, will you cut that out already? No one is
> > > asking you to stop developing your pride and joy.
>
> [ Lots more example of me bein
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Oh for FSCKS sake, will you cut that out already? No one is
> > asking you to stop developing your pride and joy.
[ Lots more example of me being, perhaps overly harsh ]
[...]
SideNote: this was orig
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh for FSCKS sake, will you cut that out already? No one is asking
> you to stop developing your pride and joy.
I know that, and I wouldn't do it even if someone asked me. I might stop
packaging it if You (Debian) thought it was a violation to the Debian
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What if I do it the '{user|group}add' way when I change the files?
> (I haven't looked into it yet, but...). I prefer not to start doing
> systemcall's, exec's etc, if I can avoid it...
YOU DON'T! You *HAVE* to use the passwd provided interfaces to
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If I'm not allowed to write a (graphical) replacement for adduser,
> > then I (and Debian) have 202kb worth of totaly worthless perlcode...
>
> That's not what I said, please don't invent things for the sake of
> histrionics. I said you're not allowed
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I did not misunderstood the word, this is _EXACTLY_ how I understood
> > > it!
> >
> > It seems to me you're still missing the point. If you realis
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Please don't flame people who report *major* SNAFU's in your
> > program.
>
> Well... He didn't report it...
Perhaps not, but he was one of the people involved in finding it; I
know because I (half-)watched them doing so on IRC.
> > You entirely
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I did not misunderstood the word, this is _EXACTLY_ how I understood
> > it!
>
> It seems to me you're still missing the point. If you realise that
> /etc/shadow is owned by someone else, why are you co
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please don't flame people who report *major* SNAFU's in your program.
Well... He didn't report it... I got the report a couple of days ago, I was
working
on fixing the other bugs I have to, at the same time I was fixing this...
I'm still not quite sure
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > That was exactly what happens! I, as root is
> > > adding/creating/deleting (etc) a user, the program xAdmin is
> > > therefor run by root, therefor /etc/shadow will be owned by
> > > root.root, True?
> >
> > You misunderstood the word "own"
Tommi Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That was exactly what happens! I, as root is adding/creating/deleting (etc)
> > a user,
> > the program xAdmin is therefor run by root, therefor /etc/shadow will be
> > owned by
> > root.root, True?
>
> You misunderstood the word "own". Think
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (If I sound sarcastic, that is exactly what I am. Check the facts
> before you come with arguments, even if this is 'debian-mentors',
> where people might not be so experienced. I am fully aware that this
> is in true a bug in the program!)
Please d
On Fri, Jun 05, 1998 at 04:01:08PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> > Now correct me if I'm wrong... but a package shouldn't go messing with
> > permissions of files that are so important without the user saying "I
> > want this". True?
> Right! My fault (or maybe Linux/Linus, I don't know. If I,
Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now correct me if I'm wrong... but a package shouldn't go messing with
> permissions of files that are so important without the user saying "I
> want this". True?
Right! My fault (or maybe Linux/Linus, I don't know. If I, as root,
modifies/creates
a file, I, an
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This should only be a temporary fix for hamm... I'm working on the
> > other two bugs I have against this package (I'm also the author of
> > the package...), and I was thinking of fixing all those bugs
Now correct me if I'm wrong... but a package shouldn't go messing with
permissions of files that are so important without the user saying "I
want this". True? This in addition to the fact that xadmin doesn't create
/etc/shadow and therefore doesn't own it. (Note that this especially includes
any
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Just so that I do this correctly... I have a fix for a serious bug in one of
> > my packages (xadmin/#23053). I wrote this in my changelog:
> >
> > xadmin (1.0.15-2) frozen; urgency=high
> >
>
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just so that I do this correctly... I have a fix for a serious bug in one of
> my packages (xadmin/#23053). I wrote this in my changelog:
>
> xadmin (1.0.15-2) frozen; urgency=high
>
> Correct?
xadmin (1.0.15-2) frozen unstable; urgency=h
Just so that I do this correctly... I have a fix for a serious bug in one of
my packages (xadmin/#23053). I wrote this in my changelog:
xadmin (1.0.15-2) frozen; urgency=high
Correct?
--
---
Turbo __
20 matches
Mail list logo
