Guy Maor writes ("Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions of device
mapper block devices"):
> I agree with your technical assessment, Ian.
Do you have an opinion about 660 vs 640 ? And the question of
equivalence to root ?
> On 12/13/05, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I thi
I agree with your technical assessment, Ian.
On 12/13/05, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the committee's ruling should explicitly castigate
> the devmapper maintainer for failing to engage constructively with any
> of the submitters.
But I disagree with this. I think such a sta
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 316883 tech-ctte
Bug#316883: lvm2: creates device nodes as root:root 600, breaking amanda
Bug#329409: group and perms wrong in /dev/mapper
Bug#341901: udev: Ownership and permissions incorrect for device-mapper devices
and directories
Bug reas
Just in case the notifications from the BTS, and CC's so far, haven't
made this clear:
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Technical
Committee is considering complaints about the default permissions of
device nodes made by devmapper and lvm2. See bug #316883 and the bugs
merg
Raul Miller writes ("Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions of device
mapper block devices"):
> I've been looking at these bugs, and I can see no good reason for the 600
> permissions, nor the reason to avoid using the disk group.
I basically agree, but I'm going to try to play devil's
5 matches
Mail list logo
