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

Re: The story behind UPG and umask.

This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:30:49PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Michael Banck said:
> > > Seems worthwhile to change adduser how you suggest to me, is there
> > > a bug filed to this end?
> > adduser has had bugs filed in the past asking for uid to be equal to
> > gid by default, and I have so far rejected them as not worth the
> > complexity for the aesthetic pleasure of having numbers match.  Is
> > there some problem with username == primary group name?
> pam_umask requires both username == primary group name and uid == gid
> before it will assume UPG are in place when using its 'usergroups'
> option, and I am not willing to diverge from upstream on this as this
> would mean admins coming from other systems may get an unpleasant
> surprise when they find that Debian gives a more relaxed umask than
> they were expecting in some corner cases.
> So either someone should convince Linux-PAM upstream to change the
> behavior of pam_umask, or adduser should enforce the same rules as
> other implementations, if pam_umask is to be involved here.  Beyond
> that, I have no particular opinion on this question.

That's the first useful argument I've heard for changing adduser's
behavior.  Interoperability with other software is a useful goal, and
when I was arguing it wasn't worth the complexity, either pam_umask
didn't exist or I was unaware of it.  I'll try to get this change into

|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: