Re: base-files and /dev
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:01, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> > 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 a mis-feature?
> I mean that dpkg should probably stop doing whatever it tries to do
> when it upgrades base-files. base-files does not contain any file in
> /dev, it only contains the directory itself. If dpkg feels the need to
> do something with /dev when it upgrades base-files, I think that's a
> problem in dpkg, and that's where we should fix it, not in base-files.
dpkg is not doing it, dpkg is calling my SE Linux script which does it.
Why do you believe that base-files should own /dev? It does not own any
files in /dev, it does not create /dev or create many (any?) files under /dev.
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