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

Re: Bug#993488: maybe reason for wontfix?

Tomas Pospisek <tpo@sourcepole.ch> wrote:

> I am guessing that the reason for the "wontfix" is "that's just how
> Unix works unfortunately" aka "that's a Unix design bug"? Is my guess
> correct?

I would call it a "Unix design decision" or even an "OS design
decision", because Windows (of the NT variant) has made the same
decision: Not allowing changes to running programs or sessions vastly
simplifies everything.

(Yes, with AD you can refresh some of the memberships in a purely
Kerberos environment and for local group you can use "runas" to get the
new groups for a new process, but the same can be done in Unix as well.)

In the then I can see the designers thinking "a change in group
membership is happening not often, allowing or optimizing this use case
will be a huge hassle" and thus never implemented or even mandated its

And now this is so baked in to everything that suddenly allowing it
would break many programs, without a doubt.

In the end, this tag is a more "cantfix" than a "wontfix", because you
basically can't, without creating a new OS.


Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Reply to: