On 08-10-14 13:58, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Gevers writes ("Re: Bug#720517: configuration files, ownership and
> dpkg-statoverride"):
>> On 07-10-14 15:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Also I don't see in your references an explanation from anyone as to
>>> why dbconfig-common does this.
>>
>> I you mean with "why": "why is it implemented this way" than that is
>> exactly the question that I am asking myself looking at the code, if you
>> mean "why does dbconfig-common change the ownership of cactis
>> configuration file" than the answer is that you can tell dbconfig-common
>> in your maintainer scripts what the (I expected initial) ownership
>> should be.
>
> Why does dbconfig-common have this feature ?Because some packages need the configuration file to be owned (or grouped) by the user under which a package is running. > Why does cactis use it ? The cacti configuration file contains a password to the database, so it must be readable by the httpd, but not readable by all other users of the system. Therefore the ownership is root:www-data. Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
