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".