Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> wrote: > In article <[🔎] 19990920080237.A3352@hairnet.demon.co.uk> you write: > >My understanding was that static IDs were for packages that did include the > >code to support dynamic IDs. There is no really reason at all for a package to > >have a static ID. > > Wrong! Lets demonstrate by counter example: Okay, you are right. > Yet, /usr, according to the filesystem standard is meant to be > sharable among different systems. If these IDs aren't statically > allocated, you might find that the above SUID and SGID programs > are SUID and SGID to the *wrong* uid or gid!!! I thought that SUID and SGID were generally considered a bad thing and should always be checked very carefully. I could see that in a diskless situation they would be completely needed, but a lot of care should still be taken. > Is it really worth it? Updating the static UIDs is difficult. It means messing with peoples /etc/passwd files. Also I dislike the references to qmail included on my system in /etc/passwd. Qmail is non-free and should not be a standard part of Debian. > Somebody else suggested that other files (queue files? I can't check > until I send this) may need to be shared, too, but I can't confirm/deny > this. Things like qmail and postfix should not really be sharing queues over NFS and hence do not need static IDs (am I right?). -- I consume, therefore I am
Attachment:
pgpfPwWHYOGhM.pgp
Description: PGP signature