On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:55:14 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] (Ch.16 FHS) be more specific on file/dir > permissions > Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:57:40 +0100 > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:40:04 +0100 > From: Johannes Poehlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Problem: > > LSB says nothing about File Permissions. > > o This makes it possible to set up an LSB-conforming package > and a LSB conforming Linux system where the application can > not run on the linux system. > > o LSB-conforming systems should be allowed to use very restrictive > permission schemes, not to make security and LSB a contradiction. > > I'm not sure we want to go here. Permissions generally are a system > administrator issue much more than they are a distribution issue, and > trying to word things so that we don't prohibit perfectly sane > configurations might be very difficult. Exactly! i would say that we should recognize it, maybe saying that a kind of reasonable permission scheme is suggested (that is almost what we say shipping with most distributions), and the system manager is free to use a mutch more restrictive one as mutch as a less restrictive one.
Luigi Genoni
