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

Re: setuid/setgid binaries contained in the Debian repository.



On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:12:10 -0400, Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> This seems like a good practice kind of recommendation, not an
>> requirement, and as such, may be better suited to be included in
>> developers reference rather than policy, don't you think?

> I agree that policy can't force developers to do that, but policy is
> already full of such recommendatons:

> 1.
>      You should not specify a `Pre-Depends' entry for a package
>      before this has been discussed on the `debian-devel' mailing
>      list and a consensus about doing that has been reached.

	Packaging informatoin, not program behaviour affected by
 this. Packaging details are determined by developers, and can be
 easily changed. 

> 2.
>      You must not tag any packages `essential' before this has been
>      discussed on the `debian-devel' mailing list and a consensus
>      about doing that has been reached.

	Packaging informatoin, not program behaviour affected by
 this. Packaging details are determined by developers, and can be
 easily changed. 


> 3.
>      You should not tag any packages as belonging to a task before
>      this has been discussed on the _debian-devel_ mailing list and
>      a consensus about doing that has been reached.

	Packaging informatoin, not program behaviour affected by
 this. Packaging details are determined by developers, and can be
 easily changed. 

> 4.
>      This will use a default sequence number of 20.  If it does not
>      matter when or in which order the `init.d' script is run, use
>      this default.  If it does, then you should talk to the
>      maintainer of the `sysvinit' package or post to `debian-devel',
>      and they will help you choose a number.

	Packaging informatoin, not program behaviour affected by
 this. Packaging details are determined by developers, and can be
 easily changed. 

> 5.
>      If this case happens, one of the programs must be renamed.  The
>      maintainers should report this to the `debian-devel' mailing
>      list and try to find a consensus about which program will have
>      to be renamed.  If a consensus cannot be reached, _both_
>      programs must be renamed.

	Packaging informatoin, not program behaviour affected by
 this. Packaging details are determined by developers, and can be
 easily changed. 


> 6.  (on perms and users) If necessary you may deviate from the
>      details below.  However, if you do so you must make sure that
>      what is done is secure and you should try to be as consistent
>      as possible with the rest of the system.  You should probably
>      also discuss it on `debian-devel' first.

	OK, the first issue of this kind. 

> 7.
>      In this case you should choose an appropriate user or group
>      name, discussing this on `debian-devel' and checking with the
>      `base-passwd' maintainer that it is unique and that they do not
>      wish you to use a statically allocated id instead.

	Hmm. I am not sure if program behaviour need be changed much
 with user name/uid changes, but I guess there could be exceptions.

> 8.
>      It is often worthwhile contacting such authors diplomatically
>      to ask them to modify their license terms.  However, this can
>      be a politically difficult thing to do and you should ask for
>      advice on the `debian-legal' mailing list first, as explained
>      below.

	Packaging informatoin, not program behaviour affected by
 this. Packaging details are determined by developers, and can be
 easily changed. 


> 9.
>      When in doubt about a copyright, send mail to
>> debian-legal@lists.debian.org>.  Be prepared to provide us with the
>      copyright statement.

	Packaging informatoin, not program behaviour affected by
 this. Packaging details are determined by developers, and can be
 easily changed. 


> Do you plan to move all these to the developer's reference? It would
> bloat the developer's reference with references to specific sections
> of policy, and leave the policy full of holes with no
> recommendations as to a good course of action or even a mention that
> a given action is potentially hazardous.

	You are now talking about putting things into policy that
 require maintainerrs to change program behaviour to attain similar
 functionality and features; and all the examples you quote are about
 packaging details that are under our control completely. 

	Apples and oranges, really. 

	manoj

-- 
"It says he made us all to be just like him.  So if we're dumb, then
god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." Frank Zappa
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C



Reply to: