Re: [RFC] adding system users: which is the best way??
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [RFC] adding system users: which is the best way??
- From: Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:38:58 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20031203043858.GD582@dijkstra.csh.rit.edu>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <20031130134729.A6521@ganymed.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20031130034243.GX23960@marvin.sbg.palfrader.org> <20031130041513.GA6433@azure.humbug.org.au> <email@example.com> <20031130134729.A6521@ganymed.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 01:47:29PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Russell Coker <firstname.lastname@example.org> [031130 05:53]:
> > Some daemons such as cups are written in a way that requires that they be
> > able to write to their own configuration files. If such a daemon is run as
> > non-root then the files will have to be owned by non-root if the "create new
> > file and rename" method of file update is used.
> Could anyone familar with cups explain why this is no RC-bug? After all,
> if it gets changed by the daemon it really sounds like a state file that
> should be in /var and not like a configuration file.
As long as the admin's changes to the configuration file (by hand) are
preserved, it is fine for it to be modified.