Re: No group write API: do not remove note
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Johannes Poehlmann wrote:
> The wording of the paragraph is now:
>
> The group(5) user database should only be red from the following APIs:
> getgrent(3), setgrent(3), sendgrent(3), and groups(1).
> The layout of the group(5) file is not specified by this standard, because
> it is access via an API.
Adding a sentence here that clarifies that applications should not manipulate
the file directly would be fine. The final sentence indirectly implies this,
but it isn't clear. I'll propose a revised paragraph after I think about it
a bit more.
> In the next chapter we say,
>
> There are many APIs in this specification that read, write,
> and/or create password and group entries;
>
> In other words, we say you can use the group database via an API.
> But this is true only for reading the database, there
> are no group write APIs.
I'm not sure that we even need this section. By definition, if an API is
not listed, then it is excluded. We don't do this for other areas that we
have excluded.
> I feel it very clear (and I am ready to bet same beers)
> that third party application developers WILL directly
> write to /etc/group if LSB does not say "Please dont".
I'd be suprised to find amny apps that do this, but I do agree that a better
statement should be made not to mess with the file directly.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson anderson@metrolink.com
Metro Link Incorporated South Carolina Office
5807 North Andrews Way 129 Secret Cove Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.660.2500 voice: 803.951.3630
http://www.metrolink.com/ XFree86 Core Team
Creative Applications Lab Chair - SIGGRAPH 2001
Reply to: