On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 06:45:38PM -0700, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 09:11:36AM +1000, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
> > So proftpd is not compliant. It's up to the proftpd authors to make it
> > compliant with the LSB, but my opinion is that we should not try and introduce
> > a file which doesn't contain anything(which does not have anything to do with
> > proftpd certainly!) inside proftpd just to make it compliant.
>
> A better question is why is LSB trying to put requirements on an
> applications configration files. /etc/ftpusers just won't work for
> proftpd becuase of the VirtualHost options. Requiring that an ftp
> server use ftpusers is would be as dumb as saying all httpd servers have
> to use apache's format.
>
You're right because every FTP might have its own config quirks (like
the missing /etc/ftpusers in proftpd).
Well, I don't really know! Stew might know a bit more though.
But that doesn't mean that I should just "fix" proftpd to make it compliant
by putting an empty file. So you'd really need to ask the LSB body to get
this addressed.
> To top all that off /etc/ftpusers is a poorly named file.
> /etc/ftpusers.deny would have been more intuitive. But LSB is just
> adopting the design of a poorly designed ftp server (wu-ftpd) as the
> standard and that's really sad. At any rate this isn't really an
> argument for this list. But that's just my two cents on the matter.
>
My guess is "historical" reasons. :-(
-- Geoff.
