Re: The unanswered Question

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Christoph Lameter (SuperCite undone):
> On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >No, you should _not make them setuid_.
> 
> Then change the policy. Both packages give instructions on how to change
> the permission of binaries in order to gain functionality and thus violate
> the policy.

I feel we have a serious miscommunication here.  What policy are you
asking me to change ?  Our policy on whether something should be
setuid ?  We don't have one at the moment, but at this rate we will
have soon.  At the moment we're just expecting maintainers to use
common sense and caution.

Or our policy on configuration by changing the permissions on
binaries ?  No, that policy is not going to be changed (a) because
it's a bad idea to embed configuration information in this way and
(b) because dpkg doesn't support it in any sane way (yet).

I'd really be happy if you were to change your packages not to have
any hint of setuidness.  The problem you're trying to address with
that is addressed much better by programs like sudo.

Thanks,
Ian.


--
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