On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 12:38:28PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:43:53AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
reall
Peter Eckersley wrote:
If my I want a file to be readable by everybody *except* user fred, I
can set permissions:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ ls -l plot-against-fred
-rwr--1 pde fred 1 Dec 27 17:12 plot-against-fred
Of course, I need root access to do it :(
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
This is a big nuisance. I spent months working on a project with
a shared directory without individual user groups. Worse yet, you
can end up with a CVS repository full of files with user-only
permissions (using a local CVS repositor, rather than remote).
Ok. Then
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 12:14:54PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
This is a big nuisance. I spent months working on a project with
a shared directory without individual user groups. Worse yet, you
can end up with a CVS repository full of files with user-only
exa == exa Eray writes:
exa I use bash. Is this zsh better? :)
Yes.
--
Stephen
A duck!
Isn't there rudimentary ACL implementation in the kernel? An ACL would do
the job nicely...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
Peter Eckersley wrote:
If my I want a file to be readable by everybody *except* user fred, I
can set permissions:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ ls -l
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:43:53AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
reall necessary?
No, but it's a good idea. It makes it much easier to work
Brian May wrote:
zsh has in /etc/zshrc:
[[ $UID == $GID ]] umask 002 || umask 022
My only dislike is it overrides my default setup in ~/.zshenv of 077.
It seems wrong to put this stuff in zshrc, that only gets used for
interactive shells. zshenv gets processed for all shells, but is run
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 12:38:28PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
No, but it's a good idea. It makes it much easier to work in
directories shared with other users (but not all users), because
you don't have to keep changing your umask all the time, or
even worse, fixing file permissions
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 12:38:28PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
I always thought it was a paranoid kind of security feature
in Debian. I might be wrong of course.
How does giving every user his own group makes it easier for
him to share files without system administrator's intervention?
Hi
Brian May schrieb:
Hamish == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hamish On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:13:13AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
However, the idea of one UID per daemon is (IMHO) a really
horrible solution, too, as you end up having more UIDs for
daemons then
Russell == Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell On Saturday 23 December 2000 09:13, KORN Andras wrote:
I feel that there exists a general confusion among some Debian
developers as to what user ids such as 'nobody' should be used
for. I suggest that the policy be
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:13:13AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
However, the idea of one UID per daemon is (IMHO) a really horrible
solution, too, as you end up having more UIDs for daemons then
users.
Why is that a problem? There are 65536 available UIDs.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:48:35AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:13:13AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
However, the idea of one UID per daemon is (IMHO) a really horrible
solution, too, as you end up having more UIDs for daemons then
users.
Why is that a problem?
Hamish == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hamish On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:13:13AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
However, the idea of one UID per daemon is (IMHO) a really
horrible solution, too, as you end up having more UIDs for
daemons then users.
Hamish Why is
Brian May wrote:
- harder to administrate /etc/passwd as more users exist.
I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
reall necessary?
cu,
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail:
exa == exa Eray writes:
exa Brian May wrote:
- harder to administrate /etc/passwd as more users exist.
exa I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
exa annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
exa reall necessary?
I don't do that on
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:43:53AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
Brian May wrote:
- harder to administrate /etc/passwd as more users exist.
I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
reall necessary?
It's
Nathan E Norman wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:43:53AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
reall necessary?
It's useful when you're in a development environment where
Brian May wrote:
exa == exa Eray writes:
exa Brian May wrote:
- harder to administrate /etc/passwd as more users exist.
exa I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
exa annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
exa reall
Eray == Eray Ozkural exa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eray Yep. I discovered that umask issue. I guess it's still a
Eray problem.
zsh has in /etc/zshrc:
[[ $UID == $GID ]] umask 002 || umask 022
My only dislike is it overrides my default setup in ~/.zshenv of 077.
It seems wrong to put
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:43:53AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
reall necessary?
No, but it's a good idea. It makes it much easier to work in
directories shared with
On Saturday 23 December 2000 09:13, KORN Andras wrote:
I feel that there exists a general confusion among some Debian developers
as to what user ids such as 'nobody' should be used for. I suggest that the
policy be updated with relevant advice.
Nobody should never be used. If you use nobody
Package: general
Version: 20001222
Severity: important
Hi,
I feel that there exists a general confusion among some Debian developers as
to what user ids such as 'nobody' should be used for. I suggest that the
policy be updated with relevant advice.
As I see it, 'nobody' should be a user that
24 matches
Mail list logo
