Re: utmp group proposal
>>>>> "Marco" == Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it> writes:
Marco> On May 20, "Karl M. Hegbloom" <psu25682@odin.cc.pdx.edu>
Marco> wrote:
>> I've noticed that there is currently a `uucp' group, a `dip'
>> group, and a `dialout' group. Do we really need all three?
>> What is the
Marco> Yes. uucp is used by the UUCP program, dialout owns the
Marco> modem device and dip can start pppd and dip.
>> `minicom' is group owned by `uucp'.
Marco> This is wrong. BTW, it's not even sgid, so I see no reason
Marco> to chown the binary to the uucp group.
Should it be `chgrp dialout', with o-x? Or root.root, o+x, and rely
on device permissions for access control, so that a machine could
have perhaps a ttyS for a serial line, and another for a dialout
modem or something? Is that real?
The question is, do we really need `dialout', `dip' AND `uucp'? You
tell me and we'll both know. I'll listen to more experienced advice.
--
mailto:psu25682@odin.cc.pdx.edu (Karl M. Hegbloom)
mailto:karlheg@debian.org (Karl M. Hegbloom)
Portland, OR USA
Debian GNU Potato Linux 2.2 AMD K6-233(@266) XEmacs-21.2beta
Reply to: