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

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 tytso@mit.edu wrote:

> >    From: Johannes Poehlmann <johannes@caldera.de>

> >        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.

Hi Luigi,

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: jhp@caldera.de
Caldera OpenLinux    phone: ++49 9131 7192 336, fax: ++49 9131 7192 399

Reply to: