I think we probably have enough bandwidth (or will do shortly) to take
on another item from our todo list. #429671 on username policy seems
to me to be where we can most obviously improve the situation so I'm
going to start there.
The problem which Marc Haber (Exim maintainer) is trying to solve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes:
> I think we probably have enough bandwidth (or will do shortly) to take
> on another item from our todo list. #429671 on username policy seems
> to me to be where we can most obviously improve the situation so I'm
> going to start there.
I believe this bu
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:52:34PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> The second is whether it's acceptable for a Debian package to *require* a
> specific username. There seems to be at least an implication that if the
> namespace clash potential is eliminated or significantly reduced, that this
> would
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Package-created usernames"):
> The second is whether it's acceptable for a Debian package to
> *require* a specific username. There seems to be at least an
> implication that if the namespace clash potential is eliminated or
> significant
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:57:41PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> On the question of grandfathering, I would suggest that we explicitly
> bless at least
> - the commonly-known UNIX user and group names
> (someone should go through base-files and check the list there)
> - existing packages alre
* Bdale Garbee:
> The second is whether it's acceptable for a Debian package to
> *require* a specific username.
There are a couple of setuid binaries which might have problems
switching to a more flexible scheme. I fear such a requirement might
actually reduce overall security.
--
To UNSUBSC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Florian Weimer) writes:
> * Bdale Garbee:
>
>> The second is whether it's acceptable for a Debian package to
>> *require* a specific username.
>
> There are a couple of setuid binaries which might have problems
> switching to a more flexible scheme. I fear such a requirement mi
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Package-created usernames"):
> After digesting the replies here and some off-list discussions, I
> now agree that while it is desireable for packages to be flexible about
> usernames to support the kinds of situations I described, requiring all
>
So here's a straw man draft for a decision on package-created
usernames:
-8<-
RUBRIC
1. We exercise our power in Constitution 6.1(1) to specify the
contents of Debian policy documents, and that in 6.1(5) to
offer our opinion.
2. Maintainers of policy documents should
9 matches
Mail list logo
