On 4/10/07, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/10/07, bardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/10/07, Dale Blount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > UUCP is dead (and has been for years), so should the GID be. > > > > That's nice to hear. So what? Are you going to patch rxtx? Because > > it's not going to work otherwise. Or maybe create a "lock" group that > > provides that functionality and let it own /var/lock. The alternative > > is virtually killing any program that relies on FHS specs to work... > > Whoa, a little aggressive here?
Busy day. Been a little nervous. Sorry :-) > Anyway, feel free to look into this > issue as you are the largest stakeholder. I'd recommend looking into > what permissions other distros put on this directory. Clearly rxtx is > not the real problem here. It's already documented on rxtx's wiki: http://rxtx.qbang.org/wiki/index.php/Installation#How_can_I_use_Lock_Files_with_rxtx.3F The 'lock' group was implemented on RH just to substitute the dead uucp. That's just a name question and nothing more, AFAIK. I don't think it'd be a great problem to keep it for historical reasons... bardo _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
