Re: base-files and /dev
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:59, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> > Does base-files really need to own /dev? If so why?
> > In my SE Linux security policy I am only allowing devfsd to change the
> > context of all /dev on a devfs system. Upgrading base-files causes dpkg
> > to try and relabel /dev as it's apparently owned by base-files.
> Seems like a misfeature that we should better fix rather than hide it
> by removing /dev from base-files.
Are you saying that the presense of /dev in base-files is a mis-feature or
that banning programs other than devfsd from molesting a devfs file system is
I've already added a few special cases to my labelling code, and I could
exclude /dev as well. But why not just make base-files cease owning /dev?
It has less claim to /dev than makedev does (and makedev doesn't list it).
I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org