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
existance.
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.
Grüße,
Sven.
--
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
Reply to: