Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I am not sure I like this. I want, as a sys admin, to be able > control what gets on to my system. I want to check what packages are > adding, and I want to have a say in what gets allowed. Do you also want to say what packages may be installed in the menu? For normal users dwww-config and lilo-config in there is also quite silly.. > As a users, I may want to over ride setting for the system as > well. There is nothing in the current proposal which claim to prevent that. In fact it cannot be prevented (unless you hack the shell of course) > With possibility of such configuration, I think any package > foisting stuff into my environment is broken. (And don't say I can > just remove things -- I should hot have to hack the system by > default). Let's put it the other way around. I think any package which can only be configured via the environment is broken. Sadly this is case for a number of packages (apt, man, minicom, etc.) I also want this for a different reason. I make packages for our local network to change some defaults. I currently divert a lot of files, including /etc/profile and companions. If I can reduce the number of diverts by using a scheme like this I would be quite happy. > This is quite similar to the arbitary programs in ip-up/down > dir -- unless the sysadming/user goves permission, this should not be > done. Such deviation from UNIX norm should always be *optional*, and > preferably on a package by package basis. chmod -x `which update-profiles`. Wichert. -- ============================================================================== This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: wakkerma@wi.LeidenUniv.nl WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
Attachment:
pgpadAwnQBbUA.pgp
Description: PGP signature