On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 10:49:03AM -0600, George Kraft IV wrote: > > Is this particular issue (UID of "bin" and "daemon") now understood enough to > > make these changes? Can we stop testing for it and not require it for > > certification? This is holding up Debian compliance and certification. > We have concluded that "daemon" is not required on Debian if atd's use of > "daemon" gets fixed; however, what about the other distributions? Why should the fact that some distributions use "daemon" for their own software lead to this restriction being imposed on other distributions? The LSB is about documenting a set of features that third-party vendors can and should depend on being present in all Linux distributions. It should NOT be a means of imposing arbitrary requirements on Linux distributions when these requirements are of no real value to software vendors. > Also, changing bin=1 not to be required is a *strong* recommendation. It would > be nice if someone could do a getpwnam and getuid search to look for code that > requires bin=1. However, I would like to avoid changing the spec in absence of > a rationale unless someone provides a proof by induction. It hampers the usefulness of the spec, because fewer distros are in compliance than could be if this requirement were not present; and no one has yet come up with a solid reason why it should be in the spec at all. What more proof is necessary? If the simple fact that the spec includes artificial obstacles to compliance does not persuade you that it needs to be changed, what will? Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpECd94iBtym.pgp
Description: PGP signature