[EMAIL PROTECTED] removed from Cc list - don't submit replies to bugreports as new bugs, ok? ;)]
Peter Palfrader wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005, Michael Tokarev wrote: [] >>In postinst script, we have: >> >> if [ -n "$version" ] && \ >> dpkg --compare-versions "$version" lt 1.07-10 >> then >> chown uucp:uucp /etc/uucp/call >> fi >> >>I think this chown should be conditional, based on presence >>of the file in question. > > You're right. Too bad nobody noticed before. I'd noticied that but "too bad" I had locally modified package which I tried to upgrade only now... BTW, probably I should've set priority to "minor", not "normal". > I assume you managed to upgrade eventually, or do you still need some > help? Sure I did: touch /etc/uucp/call ;) >>More, I think the ownership here is wrong: no files in /etc/uucp >>should be owned by uucp for security reasons. I know it' stricky >>with current uucico being setgid dialout... > > Actually it turned out to be almost impossible for the file to stay > root:uucp :( Read one of the bug reports for a lengthy discussion about > that. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Well, I've seen it after submitting this bugreport. Yeah, the problem is umm.. er. Good I don't have that file anymore ;)) And oh, it's a good thing that this stuff popped up: now I know to watch other systems which actually do have that file, to restore file ownership back to root -- in my case, uucico either uses only TCP ports, or is started from cron job with appropriate initgroups, so uucp group is here even if uucico itself is setgid(dialout). Probably some warning around that chown is needed too, how do you think? /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
