Re: LSB Spec 1.0 Criticism
>From: Alan Cox <email@example.com>
>> > application using raw cpio files. If we decide this isn't
>> > particularly important, we can drop the requirements on the uid
>> > ownership for bin.
>> If cpio is the distribution medium, why all the hoopla over rpm? If rpm
>> is the standard, why the concern about cpio?
>I'd favour dropping it and relying on the package name lists. Apps btw should
>not be owned by bin in any NFS environment anyway, it throws away the root
>squash stuff which is all the security NFS has of use
If you are using an outdated NFS inplementation or don't activate security
features, you are right.
But there is NFS ACL's and Kerberos. So if you _like_, you may have strong
NFS security for more than 3 years.
EMail:firstname.lastname@example.org (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
email@example.com (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
firstname.lastname@example.org (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix