Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-22 Thread Ben Gertzfield
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Manoj> I disagree. Developers reference still exists, and so Manoj> does the packaging manual. The packaging manual is merely Manoj> no longer policy. There is no link to the packaging manual from w.d.o/devel and there

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-22 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Ben" == Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Wichert> Policy should set guidelines for making packages [...] Wichert> The less details, the better. Ben> Um. Policy *IS* the guide for making packages now. There's no Be

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-16 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:43:01PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, when I started this thread, I hadn't thought of this case. But > > I've now become convinced of the need to have a distinction between > > maintainer statoverrides, for cases like thi

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-16 Thread Herbert Xu
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, when I started this thread, I hadn't thought of this case. But > I've now become convinced of the need to have a distinction between > maintainer statoverrides, for cases like this, and local > statoverrides, which take precedence. Not necessarily,

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-15 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:54:08PM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote: > Have you noticed you're advocating creating dynamic users in just about > every machine that ever needs to build a certain package JUST because you > dislike dpkg-statoverride usage in postinst? It looks like you're trying to >

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-15 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Julian> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Ben Gertzfield wrote: >> The man page for dh_suidregister says that any package containing a >> SUID/SGID binary no longer needs to use suidregister, instead, users >> can use dpkg-statove

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-15 Thread Henrique M Holschuh
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Henrique M Holschuh wrote: > every machine that ever needs to build a certain package JUST because you > dislike dpkg-statoverride usage in postinst? It looks like you're trying to That was out of line, and I apologise. Please read "JUST because of a dislike...", and "looks l

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-15 Thread Henrique M Holschuh
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:15:37PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > Previously Anthony Towns wrote: > > > What's special about dynamic u/gids? You just make sure the user/group > > > exists in the preinst, then let dpkg unpack it to the correct id. No n

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-15 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Anthony Towns wrote: > Seems like either fakeroot could be enhanced to handle that, or maybe > such packages should be restricted to being built with sudo with the > appropriate checks in debian/rules to ensure that either the user already > exists, or that running adduser in debian/rule

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-15 Thread Anthony Towns
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:23:06PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > Previously Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > Is there any easy way in which dpkg-statoverride can be modified to > > > distinguish between local and package overrides, in

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-15 Thread Anthony Towns
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:15:37PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Anthony Towns wrote: > > What's special about dynamic u/gids? You just make sure the user/group > > exists in the preinst, then let dpkg unpack it to the correct id. No need > > for statoverrides at all. > The name of th

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-15 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Anthony Towns wrote: > What's special about dynamic u/gids? You just make sure the user/group > exists in the preinst, then let dpkg unpack it to the correct id. No need > for statoverrides at all. The name of the user/group must be used in the data.tar.gz, which can only happen if the

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-14 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Is there any easy way in which dpkg-statoverride can be modified to > > distinguish between local and package overrides, in the way that > > suidmanager used to do? > > There are only local over

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-14 Thread Steve Greenland
On 13-Mar-01, 13:05 (CST), Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Wichert> Policy should set guidelines for making packages [...] > > Wichert> The less details, the better. > > Um. Policy *IS* the guide for making

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-14 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote: > Is there any easy way in which dpkg-statoverride can be modified to > distinguish between local and package overrides, in the way that > suidmanager used to do? There are only local overrides now. Wichert. -- _

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-14 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 04:42:46PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Julian Gilbey wrote: > > dpkg-statoverride --list is OK, adding or removing overrides is almost > > certainly not. > > It most certainly is. Think dynamic useres and groups, user interaction > if debconf isn't availabl

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Ben Gertzfield
> "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Wichert> What exactly do you want in policy? `if you behave like Wichert> the old suidregister don't do this' or so? I really don't Wichert> see the use of that. The conflicts that man dh_suidregister mentions should be i

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Ben Gertzfield wrote: > That's a good usage, but for the "old" suidregister-like behavior, > normal SUID/SGID apps do *not* need to be dpkg-statoverride'd, > as far as I can tell. That's all I want to get in policy; we > should mention that it's OK for dynamic users/groups. What exactl

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Ben Gertzfield
> "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Wichert> Policy should set guidelines for making packages [...] Wichert> The less details, the better. Um. Policy *IS* the guide for making packages now. There's no Packaging Manual any more, and so these kinds of details

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Ben Gertzfield
> "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Julian> dpkg-statoverride --list is OK, adding or removing Julian> overrides is almost certainly not. Wichert> It most certainly is. Think dynamic useres and groups, Wichert> user interaction if debconf isn't availabl

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote: > But you mustn't use dpkg-statoverride to introduce new overrides; > that's the responsibility of the local sysadmin. That is a vlid point, but has nothing to do with where you use dpkg-statoverride. I don't think policy should mention where you can use it. Policy

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Henrique M Holschuh
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:56:59AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Ben Gertzfield wrote: > > > If I understand dpkg-statoverride correctly, mentioning that > > > dpkg-statoverride is not to be called from maintainer post/pre > >

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote: > dpkg-statoverride --list is OK, adding or removing overrides is almost > certainly not. It most certainly is. Think dynamic useres and groups, user interaction if debconf isn't available, etc. Wichert. --

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 02:21:47PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Ben Gertzfield wrote: > > If I understand dpkg-statoverride correctly, mentioning that > > dpkg-statoverride is not to be called from maintainer post/pre > > install scripts should also be added. > > Euhm, how did you c

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:56:59AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Ben Gertzfield wrote: > > If I understand dpkg-statoverride correctly, mentioning that > > dpkg-statoverride is not to be called from maintainer post/pre > > install scripts should also be added. > > I oppo

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Henrique M Holschuh
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Ben Gertzfield wrote: > If I understand dpkg-statoverride correctly, mentioning that > dpkg-statoverride is not to be called from maintainer post/pre > install scripts should also be added. I oppose that. How am I supposed to have dynamically-created UIDs [that are not created

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Ben Gertzfield wrote: > If I understand dpkg-statoverride correctly, mentioning that > dpkg-statoverride is not to be called from maintainer post/pre > install scripts should also be added. Euhm, how did you come to that conclusion? Wichert. --

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Ben Gertzfield wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.5.2.0 > Severity: wishlist > > The man page for dh_suidregister says that any package containing a > SUID/SGID binary no longer needs to use suidregister, instead, users > can use dpkg-statoverrid

Bug#89473: [PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

2001-03-13 Thread Ben Gertzfield
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.2.0 Severity: wishlist The man page for dh_suidregister says that any package containing a SUID/SGID binary no longer needs to use suidregister, instead, users can use dpkg-statoverride as necessary. Policy (section 11.9, "Permissions and Owners") doesn't talk