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

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:


>    -- 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: