Re: [PROPOSAL] (Ch.16 FHS) be more specific on file/dir permissions
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:37:31AM +0100, V man wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > From: Johannes Poehlmann <email@example.com>
> > 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.
> > 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.
We need to keep the Distributions/system managers freedom, to be as
much restrictive or permissive he wants.
To guarantee this, we must forbid Third Party Software Vendors ("ISVs")
to demand more then a reasonable set of permissions.
If we fail to do so, major ISV packages will demand arbitrary permissions
and you as a Distributor had to grant them. If you do not, you will face
bad press like: "Paranoia Linux claims to be LSB compliant but fails to
execute LSB-compliant oracle/MSLinWord/Whatever".
/ ___/__/ / Caldera (Deutschland) GmbH
/ /_/ _ / /__ Naegelsbachstr. 49c, 91052 Erlangen, Germany
/_____/_/ /____/ software developer / lsb project
==== /____/ ===== Dipl. Inf. Johannes Poehlmann, mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Caldera OpenLinux phone: ++49 9131 7192 336, fax: ++49 9131 7192 399