Bug#581393: Processed: reopen 581393
On 05/13/2010 07:21 AM, Bdale Garbee wrote: Our difference of opinion is over whether showing the lecture every time is a failure or just an expected behavior when choosing to use RAMRUN. It can not be an expected behavior, because once means: "Only lecture the user the first time they run sudo.", and not first time after reboot. However, after re-reading the FHS sections on the various /var subdirs, I now believe that /var/lib may be a better location for the state information to reside in than /var/run. I'll raise this question with sudo upstream. Thank you. -- sergio. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#581393: Processed: reopen 581393
On Thu, 13 May 2010 04:28:27 +0400, sergio wrote: > On 05/13/2010 04:05 AM, Bdale Garbee wrote: > > > You assert that there is a policy violation where there is none, and > > I've already explained how you can achieve a trivial resolution of the > > behavior that bothers you with the existing packages. > > In the Debian policy I see: > /var/run and /var/lock may be mounted as temporary filesystems[59], so > the init.d scripts must handle this correctly. > > "... _must_ handle ..." > > And sudo doesn't handle this correctly. So it's policy violation. > Where I'm wrong? Our difference of opinion is over whether showing the lecture every time is a failure or just an expected behavior when choosing to use RAMRUN. However, after re-reading the FHS sections on the various /var subdirs, I now believe that /var/lib may be a better location for the state information to reside in than /var/run. I'll raise this question with sudo upstream. Bdale pgpWOJdGWj9bU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#581393: Processed: reopen 581393
On 05/13/2010 04:05 AM, Bdale Garbee wrote: You assert that there is a policy violation where there is none, and I've already explained how you can achieve a trivial resolution of the behavior that bothers you with the existing packages. In the Debian policy I see: /var/run and /var/lock may be mounted as temporary filesystems[59], so the init.d scripts must handle this correctly. "... _must_ handle ..." And sudo doesn't handle this correctly. So it's policy violation. Where I'm wrong? MI'm not an expert in Debian policy. So if there is no policy violation change severity, but don't close the bug, it exists! -- sergio. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#581393: Processed: reopen 581393
On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:21:13 +, ow...@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) wrote: > > reopen 581393 You assert that there is a policy violation where there is none, and I've already explained how you can achieve a trivial resolution of the behavior that bothers you with the existing packages. Re-opening this bug without providing some further explanation of what you think sudo should do differently will generate no useful result. Bdale pgpbFL9O6C0Kz.pgp Description: PGP signature