Bart Smaalders wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> James C. McPherson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:12:30 -0500
>>> Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at Sun.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:53:48PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand the point of this. Why is this kind of
>>>>> emulation helpful? Is this just to create honeypot? Or am I
>>>>> missing something.
>>>>>
>>>> No. Remember when ON had to be built as UID 0? It's for that sort of
>>>> purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ... something that I'm working hard to fully remove. Requiring a
>>> build as uid 0 has long since past its use-by date.
>>>
>>
>> With smarter archiving tools, we wouldn't need it. (Actually, I
>> regularly build as not-root, but there are some checks that are not
>> performed as a result -- namely matching the proto and packaging
>> ownerships. But of course, if you don't need root, then you don't
>> need those checks either! :-)
>
> But this is of course very silly; requiring permissions to be match
> between Makefile and pkgdef is just a waste of time. First normal form,
> please; keeping the same info in two places (in different forms, no
> less) is asking for trouble.
Agree whole-heartedly!
- Garrett
>
> - Bart
>
>
>
>
>
