Re: In defense of Suidmanager
Ok. I think there are no major issues with putting both the new debmake
and suidmanager into unstable.
I will reevaluate the package when a dpkg update is released. Dpkg might
do a much better job then suidmanager in some aspects but I have not even
seen a concept on how dpkg would do it.
No package should ever depend on suidmanager. That is the way I designed
it and thus it can be simply removed later if dpkg comes up with the
functionality.
Any package generated with the new debmake can be installed on systems
with or without suidmanager. Debmake does not need suidmanager to build
packages.
On 28 Nov 1996, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
quinlan >That is good news, but it is not clear from your posts on this
quinlan >subject. In fact, you have said things that contradict that
quinlan >statement.
When did I say such things?
Part of debmake's changelog:
debmake (2.00) experimental; urgency=low
* Support for suidmanager (Generated scripts will check for presence of
suidmanager and not use it if no suidmanager exists).
A package can simply be rebuild and will use suidmanager if any
setsid or setgid binaries are present. (ppp 2.3 is an example)
quinlan >Also, will the packages that use suidmanager build and debmake without
quinlan >it's presence?
??
--- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ ---
PGP Public Key = FB 9B 31 21 04 1E 3A 33 C7 62 2F C0 CD 81 CA B5
--
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: