> OK, I clicked Reply-All :-) > >>distcc creates working files on the slaves, so I'm not sure what your >> point is here. The other more complex daemons I mentioned create files >> as well. >> > I think that daemons running under nobody: > - should not create file, else they should not run under nobody > - shouldn't care if someone else see/delete/overwrite its files because > it runs also under nobody. > I think that squid/apache/distcc shouldn't run under nobody if they > write files. But if they do, then the problem is not that distcc runs > under nobody but that *squid/apache* runs under nobody. > >>How about creating a "distcc" user if one does not already exist? >> > That was the discussion point: don't create a distcc user when running > rpm installation. > While? > - It's hard to remove > - You don't know which package created/use a certain user > > So if distcc.rpm don't create a user, we have the 3 possibilities I > described. > -jec >
In the general case it would be nice if processes running as nobody would run in a chroot jail. This would prevent the various nobody processes from stepping on each other's files. In distccd's case I think this would not be workable because you'd have to cram so much stuff in to the jail, namely the compiler and all if its support files. This would be a tough thing for a package to figure out during the installation, assuming it could even figure out what compiler(s) you wanted to use. Terry -- Terry Griffin Axian Inc. http://www.axian.com/ _______________________________________________ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe/change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
