Your message dated Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug #43483: section 3.2 should not allow static user ids
(except root=0).
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem ha
Any thoughts on this one, or should it be dropped for the time being?
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~j
On Sep 23, Joey Hess wrote:
> Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > All packages are compliant with policy if they meet
> > the requirements in the version of policy their Standards-Version
> > indicates.
>
> Since when? According to the policy manual:
>
> You should specify the most recent version of t
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> All packages are compliant with policy if they meet
> the requirements in the version of policy their Standards-Version
> indicates.
Since when? According to the policy manual:
You should specify the most recent version of the packaging standards
with which your
On Sep 19, Raul Miller wrote:
> You seem to be saying that issueing new policy doesn't prevent a person
> from issuing a package under an old policy and that therefore there's
> no advantage in writing policy so that the new policy still accepts the
> old practice.
Well, it's more like issuing a n
On Sep 20, Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Please provide a rationale. Some of my packages need a static ID (64000
>> >is assigned, the only one assigned so far) because their spool could
>> >need to be NFS shared.
>
>static user id´s are a _problem_ with nfs, not a help.
>
On Sep 20, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And my home directory could be NFS stored---does that mean that uid/gid
>1000 should always and forever belong to knghtbrd on every system?
If your site has NFS mounted home directories then all user accounts
are be created by the admin with
On Sep 20, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What packages need a ID that could be shared over NFS? ie what
>packages *need* a static ID?
The packages related to fidonet. The suite needs both a news server and
a modem, so it's not an uncommon setup to run ifcico on the machine with
the mode
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>static user id´s are a _problem_ with nfs, not a help.
>that´s why this proposal is: if the user id is read via /etc/passwd
>(or whatever you use), it is possible to sync the user id´s in
>a nfs network environment.
>
>with compiled in user ids it is not p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Things like qmail and postfix should not really be sharing queues over NFS =
>and
>hence do not need static IDs (am I right?).
Its not the queues or the data files I am worried about. Someone else
said that this was an issue, but I remain unconvinced. /va
> >Please provide a rationale. Some of my packages need a static ID (64000
> >is assigned, the only one assigned so far) because their spool could
> >need to be NFS shared.
static user id´s are a _problem_ with nfs, not a help.
that´s why this proposal is: if the user id is read via /etc/passwd
(o
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 10:32:59AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 19, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think the practice of using static IDs should be deprecated (and
> >packages doing it should get lintian warnings..) I disagree with banning
> Please provide a rationale. Some
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >My understanding was that static IDs were for packages that did include the
> >code to support dynamic IDs. There is no really reason at all for a package
> >to
> >have a static ID.
>
> Wrong! Lets demonstrate by
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>My understanding was that static IDs were for packages that did include the
>code to support dynamic IDs. There is no really reason at all for a package to
>have a static ID.
Wrong! Lets demonstrate by counter example:
[511] [snoopy:bam] ~ >ls -ld /usr/b
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >Please provide a rationale. Some of my packages need a static ID (64000
> >is assigned, the only one assigned so far) because their spool could
> >need to be NFS shared.
>
> As the maintainer of diskless, I am curi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Please provide a rationale. Some of my packages need a static ID (64000
>is assigned, the only one assigned so far) because their spool could
>need to be NFS shared.
As the maintainer of diskless, I am curious:
What packages need a ID that could be share
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 12:45:10AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> My point is simply that changing policy does not translate into making
> things happen by fiat. Perhaps you missed the entire point of my
> mail, because it seems like we agree with each other.
Actually... rereading your original p
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 12:45:10AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> My point is simply that changing policy does not translate into making
> things happen by fiat. Perhaps you missed the entire point of my
> mail, because it seems like we agree with each other.
*blush* yeah.
--
Raul
On Sep 19, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think the practice of using static IDs should be deprecated (and
>packages doing it should get lintian warnings..) I disagree with banning
Please provide a rationale. Some of my packages need a static ID (64000
is assigned, the only one assi
On Sep 19, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sep 18, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > It's a problem if there's no transition to speak of. We apparently have
> > > decided not to make policy that makes a bunch of packages instantly non-
> > > compliant without a reasonable transition.
>
> On Sat, Sep 18, 1999
> On Sep 18, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > It's a problem if there's no transition to speak of. We apparently have
> > decided not to make policy that makes a bunch of packages instantly non-
> > compliant without a reasonable transition.
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 11:24:13PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 18, Joseph Carter wrote:
> It's a problem if there's no transition to speak of. We apparently have
> decided not to make policy that makes a bunch of packages instantly non-
> compliant without a reasonable transition.
I think we're starting to bastardize the concept of "policy
compliance"
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 09:38:37PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > I think the practice of using static IDs should be deprecated (and
> > packages doing it should get lintian warnings..) I disagree with banning
> > them outright as it doesn't really give packages a chance to get fixed
> > before t
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 06:13:20PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I think the practice of using static IDs should be deprecated (and
> packages doing it should get lintian warnings..) I disagree with banning
> them outright as it doesn't really give packages a chance to get fixed
> before they have
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 12:17:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Section 3.2 should not allow static user ids (except root=0) (#43483)
> * Stalled for 2 weeks.
> * Proposed by Andreas Jellinghaus.
> * Policy currently allows for static uid' to be hardcoded into
> daemons
On Wed, Aug 25, 1999 at 11:20:59AM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
>
> : Package: debian-policy
> : Version: web page 1999-8-25
> :
> : Debian allows static user ids. This is not a good idea.
> : the code necessary
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
: Package: debian-policy
: Version: web page 1999-8-25
:
: Debian allows static user ids. This is not a good idea.
: the code necessary to use static id's is pretty small
^^
dynamic, surely?
--
Nathan N
Package: debian-policy
Version: web page 1999-8-25
Debian allows static user ids. This is not a good idea.
the code necessary to use static id's is pretty small
(several versions on debian-devel 1999-8-25), so every
daemon should do so. this way its easy to use a package
on a non-debian
28 matches
Mail list logo
