Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch
* Humberto Massa (firstname.lastname@example.org) [051026 18:48]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >* Humberto Massa (email@example.com) [051026 18:34]:
> >>in my workstation I try out a new package (for scientfic computing, a
> >>game for Lucas, a new development package) at least once each two days,
> >>and a lot of times they come with their libs and their daemons -- and
> >>their users. So I see them, and think "oh, no, this is not what I
> >>thought it would be", and --purge them. And the daemons' users pile up
> >>in /etc/passwd.
> >well, perhaps take it as administrators job to clean up /etc/passwd from
> >time to time if you install that many packages (because you as
> >administrator know which users were co-used with someone else, and which
> >not). But this is definitly not the most common scenario.
> It seems that you still did not get my point.
> My point is, in a SoHo workstation, this is exactly the most common
> scenario nowadays (example: "hmm. let me try this new dvd-player... I
> open synaptic, install it, ... nah, it does not work as I expected [but
> it installed gstreamer, jackd, etc in the process] let me try the next
> one in the list...")
I fear, you still did not get my point.
We have two ways to choose from, both with advantages and disadvantages.
One has the disadvantage to be able to make systems magically fail and
expose security risks.
The other has the disadvantage to make /etc/passwd a bit too large in
Isn't it obvious that we shouldn't go for the security risk?
I don't mind at all if we get some clever way like marking the user in
the gecos-field and have an "debuserfoster". But I mind very much to try
to deal security with "looks nicer".