On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 06:22:57PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:26:16PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > I wholeheartedly agree and second this proposal. Also, /home should be > > root:root 0755 instead of root:staff 2775; it is only confusing and > > actually does not do anything useful. > > Obviously it does: it allows an administrator in the staff group to > install software in /usr/local without having to use root priviledge, > so prevent mistakes that would affect the /usr hierarchy. I don't see > what is confusing here?
In Martin's second sentence, he's talking about /home, where it's not especially useful for users other than root to have write access since they can't chown the home directories to the new user anyway. > This is even documented, see > /usr/share/doc/base-passwd/users-and-groups.txt.gz: > > staff > > Allows users to add local modifications to the system (/usr/local, /home) > without needing root privileges. Compare with group 'adm', which is more > related to monitoring/security. base-passwd documents the situation at the moment and the rationale as retroactively understood at the time when the documentation was written (that understanding may have been imperfect); I'd obviously be happy to update it to take account of changes. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]