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

Re: SPF - exim4 + debian.org

* Hamish Moffatt (hamish@debian.org) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:51:40AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Sorry, the argument doesn't go both ways- there *are* problems w/
> > a username of 'Debian-exim', the many bugs you see filed about it bear
> > this out.  Are there bugs filed the other way?  Do you have some
> > justification for beliveing their would be?
> No; we don't usually file bug reports to say that everything is OK!

Do you have some justification for believing there would be bugs filed
about the 'exim' username being used instead of 'Debian-exim'?  What?

> As Marc has said, the chief technical complaints are ls (fixed) and ps.
> Where are the bugs with the other technical complaints?

The fact that ls and ps had to be fixed should have given you a hint.
It wouldn't suprise me in the least if there are other packages which
end up having problems if they do anything with usernames.  Sure, you
can say "well, fix them!" but the point is- why break them?  Because
you're worried you *might* have a namespace problem.  This doesn't even
get into the issue that many people out there have their own scripts
which they wrote to do whatever that break because of this crappy name.

> Also, how often do you have to interact with the Debian-exim user
> anyway? I don't remember ever having to do a 'chown exim ...' so I don't
> know why I would start now.

Every damn time I run ps on a machine running it.  And, sorry, even once
ps is 'fixed' I'm still going to see 'Debian-exim'; as if I somehow
didn't know I was on a Debian machine.  This is getting *really* old, it
was a bad idea, it's *still* a bad idea, that's not going to change.
You're going to continue to get bugreports filed about it, you're going
to continue to break things with it and you're going to continue to go
against the Debian status-quo (which is, traditionally, what defines our


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: