RE: Bug#134658: ITP: lsb -- Linux Standard Base 1.1 core support package
Yes, assuming the bin uid/gid are 1 isn't good practice as it is not
consistent between Linux distributions. That's not the issue and Debian
is not going to comply with LSB 1.0, ever. But note that I am saying
nothing about complying with any other version of the LSB.
The most difficult question that a standards body codifying existing
practice deals with is trying to not break existing software. Since most
software should be using good practices and hence using getpwent(), most
existing software will work with Debian. When we deprecate a specific
item in the LSB, we are giving software providers notice that their
software needs to be changed to comply with LSB 1.x, 2.x, etc. When the
specification requirement that bin's uid/gid be 1 is obsoleted, software
providers will have been given ample time (1-2 yrs.?) to update their
software. At that time, Debian, with no changes, will become compliant
with the version of the LSB in which the requirement that bin's uid/gid
be 1 is dropped.
If I were Debian, I would be frustrated at the length of time it takes
to obsolete a feature. It's an unfortunate reality that software
producers need to have time to change their products, but it is also an
unavoidable reality.
Lastly, I offer the observation that if it were easy to create and
update a Linux interface standard, it would have been done a long time
ago.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wichert Akkerman [mailto:wichert@wiggy.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 9:19 AM
To: VomLehn, David
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org; lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org
Subject: Re: Bug#134658: ITP: lsb -- Linux Standard Base 1.1 core
support package
Previously VomLehn, David wrote:
> I would urge some caution here. If I were to guess at a reason as to
why
> bin has uid/gid of 1, I would suspect that some application
> installations use 1 as the bin uid/gid instead of looking it up.
But this already isn't portable since the uid of bin is not consistent
between Linux distributions.
> This may not be good practices, but the LSB work is primarily focused
> on codifying current practices, good or not.
codifying a current broken practice is broken. Also notice that the
description if bin and daemon in the LSB are vague at best which
suggests that there really is nobody who has any good reason for
having those accounts around.
Wichert.
--
_________________________________________________________________
/wichert@wiggy.net This space intentionally left occupied \
| wichert@deephackmode.org http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Reply to: