At Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:11:00 +0200, Stephan Beal wrote: > And i would go one step further and NOT use fossil for the system files. > Fossil does not support file permissions > other than the +x bit and does not understand user/group ownership. Without > that, using it for managing system-level > files is a disaster waiting to happen. If certain files do not have exactly > the right permissions... kaboom. > > > I use sudo to edit these files as most of the files are editable only > > by root. > > > > How do I use Fossil in this context? > > i strongly recommend against it. Others on this list will just as strongly > argue the opposite, however. (And we're > all right ;) >
I personally use fossil for (among other things), managing my /etc directory on two different machines. Thus far, I've had no problems, although I took care to ensure that certain offending files were not included. I manage the repository as root, make sure that all permissions remain root only, with no group access, and made the web interface permissions never allow nobody/anonymous (there were other details that I paid attention to, security-wise, as well). That said, I primarily just use it to revert or backup certain files when they change unexpectedly. I don't think that managing the '/' directory under fossil seems like a great idea, but I've been wrong before. :) Tim _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
