Re: [PROPOSAL] (Ch.16 FHS) be more specific on file/dir permissions
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 email@example.com wrote:
> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:55:14 -0500
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] (Ch.16 FHS) be more specific on file/dir
> Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:57:40 +0100
> Resent-From: email@example.com
> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:40:04 +0100
> From: Johannes Poehlmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> LSB says nothing about File Permissions.
> o This makes it possible to set up an LSB-conforming package
> and a LSB conforming Linux system where the application can
> not run on the linux system.
> o LSB-conforming systems should be allowed to use very restrictive
> permission schemes, not to make security and LSB a contradiction.
> I'm not sure we want to go here. Permissions generally are a system
> administrator issue much more than they are a distribution issue, and
> trying to word things so that we don't prohibit perfectly sane
> configurations might be very difficult.
Exactly! i would say that we should recognize it, maybe saying that
a kind of reasonable permission scheme is suggested (that is almost what
we say shipping with most distributions), and the system
manager is free
to use a mutch more restrictive one as mutch as a less restrictive one.