Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
Thomas Hood <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> (Replies to some comments made in the
> RFC: New required package: libblkid1
> thread, which really belong to the discussion that took
> place under the subject heading
> ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug? ...)
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Let's optimize for the common case, not for the uncommon case.
> Matt Ryan wrote:
> > We are in danger of going to far in wanting to satisfy
> > any desire people have. While the argument has been made
> > that some people view a r/o root filesystem as a
> > requirement there are many others (the majority?) who
> > don't and why should we all learn a new location
> > for files when we don't need (or want) to? [...]
I think the consensus so far has been to do as little changes to
existing non Debian specific software (like mount) as possible and not
to break too much Debian speciic software.
Thus mount would be patched to fully and properly handle the case
where /etc/mtab is a link to somewhere else instead of changing mount
to use somewhere else directly. Also we talk about internal files that
a user usually never looks at or changes itself. So there is no need
to lern a new location, the old one is still valid and you never need
> > lets aim for problems that
> > effect the majority and not the few who want a r/o fs or
> > run diskless clients.
> I guess the argument here is that the desire for a read-only
> root filesystem is frivolous. Someone trying to run Debian
> from a ROM wouldn't feel that way, but he's just a MINORITY.
> And we mustn't allow a MINORITY to inconvenience THE MAJORITY
> so much as to learn a new location for a file!
> Is that the argument? Hrm.
So lets discriminate against minorities. Lets forbid the useage of
Debian for military purposes. Lets ignore blind people. Hey, screw the
jews and the reds and the black. *irony*
PS: Read-only / has a big impact on security. Try to install a
root-kit on a cdrom for example.