Oden Eriksson wrote: >On l�rdagen den 13 juli 2002 11.34 Stefan van der Eijk wrote: > > >>Oden Eriksson wrote: >> >> >>>On l�rdagen den 13 juli 2002 09.37 Stefan van der Eijk wrote: >>> >>> >>>>When installing ypbind: >>>> >>>>warning: group rpcuser does not exist - using root >>>> >>>>I've seen more of these lately... (same goes for apache) >>>> >>>> >>>If you ask me this is just plain stupid... The latest setup package lacks >>>nearly all system (daemon/services) accounts. qmail, djbdns, apache, etc. >>>I still haven't gotten an answer why this change. >>> >>> >>Nobody will complain about it because the file gets created as >>.rpmnew... once you put the file in place, the party starts... >> >> > >That only if you upgrade right? > With a new install (how else) it'll be different...
I think I'm going to reinstall one system tonight... and see how that one ends up. Anyway, another one: warning: user rpm does not exist - using root warning: group rpm does not exist - using root >The thing is that if you manually migrate stuff later you need to do a lot of >chown:ing. And copying/synching files between machines won't work as easily >anymore because there's no more static uid/gid:s. > most copy programs like rsync work with names and not uid:gid, right? With removeable media it is different. >The only way to make a "server farm" with identical Mandrake machines from now >on is to a.) use disk cloning, b.) use replay_install.img or c.) use your own >setup rpm (your own distro...). > Uh... not quite... Mostly only users will access media from different machine, the services (webserver, etc) mostly don't (if they do, why?). When you store the users passwd / group data in LDAP or NIS, then you shouldn't have problems with NFS / removeable media. >This is a bad move Mandrake... > I'm not sure... What I'm not happy about is that the rpm's that could use non-root accounts don't make them when being installed (/ upgraded). This could make it easier for systems to be hacked (why not walk in as root instead of as apache?). Let's hope the rpm's involved will get updated to comply with the change... What I'm wondering: if & where is this descision documented? Are instructions / guidelines available on how this should work and on how to update the packages? --> Would be nice for your apache2 package too, right? Stefan
