Christian Hammers wrote:
>I propose to include something like to following sentence into the next
>version of the Policy or the packaging-manual to clearify the situation
>below since the actual policy only speaks of config files but not of
>e.g. news articles (from INN), or cached files
Hello dear Policy'tians !
I propose to include something like to following sentence into the next
version of the Policy or the packaging-manual to clearify the situation
below since the actual policy only speaks of config files but not of
e.g. news articles (from INN), or cached files (squid/wwwo
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Consider su -c /etc/init.d/blah
Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And if the PATH wasn't appended, how would su -c /etc/init.d/blah be any
> different, except that it may not run?
So? It's not as if su -c is the only issue involved. And, not r
On 19-Apr-99, 02:26 (CDT), Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it does require a lot of people to make modifications to a lot of
> scripts -- but it certainly doesn't require modifications again if the
> root path ever changes. Why? Because these script are appending what THEY
> need, ev
Le Fri, Apr 16, 1999 at 12:53:27PM -0700, Joey Hess écrivait:
> PROPOSED:
>
> I propose that section 2.3.8, paragraph 2 of policy be amended to replace
> /etc/nntpserver with /etc/news/server.
Seconded.
--
Hertzog Raphaël >> 0C4CABF1 >> http://prope.insa-lyon.fr/~rhertzog/
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> PROPOSED:
>
> I propose that section 2.3.8, paragraph 2 of policy be amended to replace
> /etc/nntpserver with /etc/news/server.
Seconded.
--
"3838cabf591cc72de37d41589efb453a" (a truly random sig)
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 05-Apr-99, 08:46 (CDT), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Proposal 4:
> > ==
> >
> > *) We don't go any further until there are packages in the distribution
> > left which use a hardcoded install-info's --infodir option.
>
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> I think that the append mechanism is bad because there are a number of
> contexts where this isn't the best solution.
>
> > The parents PATH would be inherited anyhow, wouldn't it? So we're
> > doing what to it that reduces security?
>
> Consider su -c /
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Does it hurt anything? I've yet to see anybody point out to me that it
> > does.
>
> Again: it requires that a lot of people make modifications to a lot
> scripts. It then puts us in a position that if the standard root path
> ever changes, all thos
9 matches
Mail list logo
