Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
Wednesday, August 18, 1999, 3:11:27 PM, Justin wrote:
> OK, is there anyone who disagrees with this:
Me.
> -- sash becomes an "important" package so that it is installed
> by default. people who know that their systems will never
> fail can deselect it, but by default you get it
I don't think it should be forced on anyone as they may desire to go the
route of boot disks.
> these are run so rarely I don't see why they can't be static
> by default--but if people yell, we can have separate static
> versions.
Static = bad. It is not up to you to determine how often things are run
nor the relative "cheapness" of the hardware.
> -- root's shell be set to sash by default, if sash is installed
Very bad as sash is not an interactive shell thus making it unusable.
Sash is also not a POSIX compliant shell making scripts which may depend on
root's shell unreliable.
A better option is to make an alternative UID 0 user with sash that is not
root. However, this introduces a security hole.
> That seems like an initial first step that would solve a lot of the
> problems I've talked about. It doesn't solve them all, but if we
> can agree on this we'll all be better off.
The problems you've discussed are problems best addressed by the
individual site administrators pursuant with the policy of their site.
> Does anybody disagree?
> If so please say what is wrong with the idea.
I disagree and have been telling you what is wrong with the whole idea
several times. You just don't want to listen.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: