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

Bug#226235: marked as done (xserver-common: Should not re-create /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config in /tmp)

Your message dated Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:13:25 +0100
with message-id <45E33155.30402@ens-lyon.org>
and subject line ping timeout, closing
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: xserver-common
Version: 4.2.1-15
Severity: normal

Currently the postinst creates a temporary file in /tmp for the new Xwrapper.config.  There is no benefit in doing this,
it might as well use $XWRAPPER_CONFIG.dpkg-new all along with no loss of functionality.

For SE Linux a file created in /tmp gets a different context, and if it is moved to /etc and /etc and /tmp are in the
same file system then it retains a type that prevents most domains from accessing it.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux lyta 2.6.0-usbnet #1 Mon Jan 5 18:21:59 EST 2004 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Versions of packages xserver-common depends on:
ii  debconf                     1.4.2        Debian configuration management sy
ii  libc6                       2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  xfree86-common              4.2.1-15     X Window System (XFree86) infrastr

-- debconf information excluded

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Closing this bug since I didn't get any reply from the submitter (or
repliers) after my ping a month ago. If anybody ever reproduces this
problem, feel free to reopen.

Brice

--- End Message ---
Reply to: