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

Re: NMU'ing for wishlist bugs? (aka: intent to NMU bind9)


El lun, 16-09-2002 a las 09:52, Andres Salomon escribió:
> Not unless bind needs a static uid (which I can't see a reason for).

Sharing cached data files between diferent instances, over NFS?  Don't
shoot at me if I'm hopelessly wrong, I don't know BIND.

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 09:48:09AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:

> > 	At least you should coordinate with base-passwd for bind's uid.
> > Am I right in this?
> > 

I read in my copy of the Policy, that there is a range between:


which is "Globally allocated by the Debian project, but only created on

How does one request a UID/GID in this range?

For djbdns it would be nice to have identical uids/gids over different
systems (I said _nice_), for Qmail it would be a big relieve!  Sensitive
queue managment *requires* it.

The privileged and small range 0-99 is not required for these programs,
as isn't (I suppose) for a lot of programs which would gain by privilege

Mailing list managers and other applications could also be outplaced
there, some examples:

msql:x:36:36:Mini SQL Database Manager:/var/lib/msql:/bin/sh
gnats:x:41:41:Gnats Bug-Reporting System (admin):/var/lib/gnats:/bin/sh

Mailman is re-using list, maybe not a good idea...

The policy states: "These ids are for packages which are obscure or
which require many statically-allocated ids."

This frase could be extended to e.g.: "and for packages which are not
essential to the base system and need static ids". 

That would allow that base-password only contained a minimal set,
without discriminating other applications like majordomo as "obscure".



Reply to: