> "s" == s Lichtmaier writes:
s> It's tricky... capabilities don't fix this.
I was considering the case where setuid root may not be required
because capabilities could be used instead.
s> And I know nothing about ACL's on UNIX systems. It must be
s> something like "these user
> s> A better design would have been having the file to have a
> s> second UID/GID.
>
> s> So, a file could be owned by root, but setuid man.
>
> ACLs and capabilities are probably two very different solutions to
> this problem.
>
> (...depends on how they are implemented).
It's
On Feb 07, Nicol?s Lichtmaier wrote:
> > > Argh, egg on face: linux lets the owner of a file modify it even if it
> > > is mode 444 and in a directory they do not own. Yuck! Is this standard
> > > unix semantics? It sucks.
> > Even worse: IIRC the owner of a file can chmod it to his or her
> > hear
> "s" == s Lichtmaier writes:
s> A better design would have been having the file to have a
s> second UID/GID.
s> So, a file could be owned by root, but setuid man.
ACLs and capabilities are probably two very different solutions to
this problem.
(...depends on how they are im
> > Argh, egg on face: linux lets the owner of a file modify it even if it
> > is mode 444 and in a directory they do not own. Yuck! Is this standard
> > unix semantics? It sucks.
> Even worse: IIRC the owner of a file can chmod it to his or her
> heart's content, and this is standard Unix semantic
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I had already talked to Wichert about this before uploading
> the policy with packaging aspects subsumed, and he took over the
> packaging manuals dpkg documentation role. (Correct me I I
> mis remember, Wichert).
Correct.
> So I suspect that t
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
Debian Policy List
If you wish to co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second Wichert's proposal to allow DFSG-free crypto into the main
distribution.
lamont
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE6gJB39qtJ0yRhi/YRAtDMAJ4o9qrsE3919tykh5pwG/mwEI
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Please see: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:27:47AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> The holes in that page are so large you could drive fleets of roadtrains
> through them.
I'm disregarding this as a troll.
> I refer specif
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
> Please see: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
The holes in that page are so large you could drive fleets of roadtrains
through them. I refer specifically to "you own that copy of the software",
which implies that you own that copy, and are free to do what
>>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Julian> But now we have a little problem: there is this "orphaned" package:
Julian> packaging-manual, which appears to no longer be generated from any
Julian> binary package. So should we now hand it over to the dpkg team, and
Julian> up
>>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> \begin{sophistry}
Chris> Since non-free isn't part of Debian-the-distribution, is it really
Chris> subject to policy? Sure, it'd be nice if the stuff in there followed
Chris> policy, but since it's not Debian who cares.
Chris> \e
Are we talking djbdns? Then there's also the security issue to deal with.
Bind's full of holes, and we can't reliably state that Debian will be "in
the loop" on Vixie's 'leet fix0rs list. Right now, dismissing out of hand
ANY bind alternative cannot be done in good conscience. Historically, it
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:39:22AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
> > code or 100% FHS compliance?
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:44:52AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> The latter. But note that non-free is not part of Debian.
Ok.
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:39:22AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
> code or 100% FHS compliance?
The latter. But note that non-free is not part of Debian.
Also, see http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq#djb
--
Chris Waters |
On Feb 06, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:39:22AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
> > code or 100% FHS compliance?
>
> A further comment (from Paul Jarc):
>
> The FHS says: "The /usr/local hierarchy is for use
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:39:22AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
> code or 100% FHS compliance?
A further comment (from Paul Jarc):
The FHS says: "The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system
administrator when installi
Please see: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
code or 100% FHS compliance?
Thanks,
--
Raul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second the proposal to allow DFSG free crypto programs into the main
archive.
Bdale
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE6gCFiZKfAp/LPAagRAvbMAJ9Bz0w/FLhDJ/vHUowgckB5Myf8
Hello Manoj and all!
Firstly, well done on incorporating the packaging-policy stuff into
policy. Great work!
But now we have a little problem: there is this "orphaned" package:
packaging-manual, which appears to no longer be generated from any
binary package. So should we now hand it over to th
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 09:41:00PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Feb 05, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Argh, egg on face: linux lets the owner of a file modify it even if it
> > is mode 444 and in a directory they do not own. Yuck! Is this standard
> > unix semantics? It sucks.
>
> Even worse: IIRC the
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: jdg Tue Feb 6 06:56:29 PST 2001
Modified files:
. : README.shlibdeps
Log message:
Correct "=3D" -> "="
On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>I think that Debian has more opportunity to deal with this than any
>commercial entity since the workers are unpaid. Just start a recruiting
>drive to get more people who will help with some of the non-programming
>chores. At the current salary rate
23 matches
Mail list logo
