2006/9/27, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:47:02AM +0200, Arnaud Quette wrote:
> >If the user owns files that aren't removed until purge time, that would
> >leave dangling files that may end up owned by an unrelated service user
> >when
> >the uid is reused, which would be a bad thing. (This is also why it's
> >generally a bad idea to delete system users at all in maintainer scripts,
> >because you can't always know that there are no files left owned by the
> >user.)
> >Since this package creates a /var/lib/nut directory which may be full of
> >files owned by this user, and does nothing on removal to clean up these
> well, there shouldn't be anything left. This is just for socket
> communication, and pid files. So I'll also there care of this one.
Hmm, a socket and pid files in /var/lib/nut? That sounds like an FHS
violation... :)
right. I'm waiting for another nut sub project I've launched (Nut
Packaging Standard) to make a switch to /var/run/nut, possibly
separating the pid files (into /var/run) and the socket files (into
/var/run/nut)
So if these are the only files the user ever owns, deleting the user on
purge would also be ok, as long as you check for deluser's presence first
before calling it.
But leaving the user in place is also certainly allowed.
> >files, I think it's best to just not delete the user at all.
> If there is no objection, we'll go that way.
Definitely no objections from me.
thanks for the feedback,
Arnaud
--
Linux / Unix Expert - MGE UPS SYSTEMS - R&D Dpt
Network UPS Tools (NUT) Project Leader - http://www.networkupstools.org/
Debian Developer - http://people.debian.org/~aquette/
OpenSource Developer - http://arnaud.quette.free.fr/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
