Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: handling the "uucp" group
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, R0b0t1 wrote: > It makes the most sense to me to give a uucp user dialout or tty > permission, instead of adding myself to the uucp group, a name which > references programs most people won't have installed and won't know > about. The tty group has an entirely different purpose, namely to allow programs such as write(1) and wall(1) access other users' terminals. So conflating it with dialout or uucp would be wrong. Ulrich pgpuyECm2h9td.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: handling the "uucp" group
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, William Hubbs wrote: > >> First, baselayout has had the "dialout" group since 2015, so the >> longterm fix imo is to possibly use that instead of the uucp group. >> What would it take to make that happen, or are we stuck with the >> uucp group forever? > > There was an old discussion on this in bug 108249 [1]. The decision > back in 2005 was to use the "uucp" group (because apparently that was > what both Debian and Fedora did at the time), but IIRC it was pretty > much arbitrary. > > So I don't see a reason why we couldn't use "dialout" instead. > UUCP doesn't have any intrinsic relationship with modems, though it probably finds (found) most use over modems. Was "dialout" or "tty" changed to "uucp" for some reason? If possible please use dialout, as very few modems are teletypes. It makes the most sense to me to give a uucp user dialout or tty permission, instead of adding myself to the uucp group, a name which references programs most people won't have installed and won't know about. Cheers, R0b0t1
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: handling the "uucp" group
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, William Hubbs wrote: > First, baselayout has had the "dialout" group since 2015, so the > longterm fix imo is to possibly use that instead of the uucp group. > What would it take to make that happen, or are we stuck with the > uucp group forever? There was an old discussion on this in bug 108249 [1]. The decision back in 2005 was to use the "uucp" group (because apparently that was what both Debian and Fedora did at the time), but IIRC it was pretty much arbitrary. So I don't see a reason why we couldn't use "dialout" instead. Ulrich [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/108249 pgpNEdSItxCzw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: handling the "uucp" group
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > Hi all, > > I have noticed that in the latest versions of udev we are patching the > default upstream rules to accomodate our "uucp" group. > > I don't think it is a good idea to patch default rules, so, I want to > bring up possible fixes. > > First, baselayout has had the "dialout" group since 2015, so the > longterm fix imo is to possibly use that instead of the uucp group. What > would it take to make that happen, or are we stuck with the uucp group > forever? I think a news item targeting current eudev/udev/systemd users announcing the change would suffice. Basically, the change means that modem/serial devices will be owned by the "dialout" group instead of "uucp", so people will need to update their group membership settings if they rely on that. > Also, I think if we are stuck with the uucp group we should write a rule > of our own instead of patching the default rules. If we keep the uucp group, I would prefer to continue patching the udev rule. This makes it very simple to notice if/when upstream makes changes to it. Whatever you do, please keep the systemd and eudev teams in the loop -- this affects more than just sys-fs/udev.
[gentoo-dev] rfc: handling the "uucp" group
Hi all, I have noticed that in the latest versions of udev we are patching the default upstream rules to accomodate our "uucp" group. I don't think it is a good idea to patch default rules, so, I want to bring up possible fixes. First, baselayout has had the "dialout" group since 2015, so the longterm fix imo is to possibly use that instead of the uucp group. What would it take to make that happen, or are we stuck with the uucp group forever? Also, I think if we are stuck with the uucp group we should write a rule of our own instead of patching the default rules. Thoughts? William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
