[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#5308: Overlap between base and makedev

Package: makedev
Version: 1.5-1

This perhaps should have been filed against base, but it's the same
maintainer, I hope.

base version is 1.1.0-14

1. base has /dev/MAKEDEV as a conffile, this was overwritten during
the makedev install.

2. The manpages also need to be sorted out:

# dpkg -S `ls /usr/man/*/MA*`
base: /usr/man/man8/MAKEDEV.8
makedev: /usr/man/man8/MAKEDEV.8.gz

Solution (bit obvious this) remove makedev stuff from next version of
base and have the next version of makedev or base remove the redundant
manpage. Should the device file themselves be removed from base?

Giuliano Procida.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com

>From miss
Received: from mongo.pixar.com (
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 7 Nov 1996 13:16:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 1712 invoked from smtpd); 7 Nov 1996 12:56:00 -0000
Received: from primer.i-connect.net (HELO master.debian.org) (bruce@
  by mongo.pixar.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 1996 12:55:52 -0000
Date:	Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:53:32 +0100 (MET)
From:	Juergen Menden <menden@informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Menden <menden@informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@waterf.org>
cc:	Debian developers list <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: debmake 1.14 uploaded
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961106092454.8063A-100000@waterf.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961107114144.25739C-100000@koma.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"PJoie.0.C83.PzTWo"@master.debian.org>
Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Resent-Reply-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-devel@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/2585
X-Loop: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Precedence: list
Priority: non-urgent
Importance: low
Resent-Sender: debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org

On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> No one is usually in group root. And the wrappers naturally such big
> security holes that using those wrappers is almost equal to superuser
> access anyways. So I thought membership of group root would be
> an appropriate rquirement. 

of course not! :-) 
only ownership of the root account is the apropriate requirement
for superuser access.

> If you have any better suggestions then tell
> me.

depend on sudo/super and use it internally for the commands which 
need root access (just as dpkg-buildpackage uses them). 

> There is special environment handling going on 

the best way to ensure unlimited superuser access is to keep the
environment and search the PATH.

sorry, this sounds pathetic, but that's the reason for
the environment changes. well, i do not see any problems
with this. any environment variable you want to have
can be set on the root-side of the wrapper in a more 
secure way. 

> and all those tools expect
> the REAL userid to be changed and not the effective UID. Otherwise your
> tools wont work.

this one i do not understand. why do your tools need the _real_ UID 
to be root? and how do you do provide this? IIRC only the euid is
changed by the suid bit.

if you have an algorithm which can change the real uid to root, if 
the effective uid is root, then why don't implement it in the tools
which need it so that they can be called with the euid set?

sorry if all this sounds silly, but in fact i do not 
really understand why you need it.

my 2 cents,

Juergen Menden                   | Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by me, 
tel:    +49 (89) 289 - 22387     +-----------+ are (usually) not the opinions 
e-mail: menden@informatik.tu-muenchen.de     | of anyone else on this planet.

Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com

Reply to: