Scott Rotondo wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: > >> Anyway, policy or not, there is precedence to show that proposing the >> integration of a >> FOSS suid utility will bring discussion. > > As will proposing a Sun-developed setuid utility (as it should). > > Scott True enough.
My view is that any suid utility needs to be treated as if it were a "Sun" or "OpenSolaris" developed utility in that it can't be integrated or updated without a complete code review or understanding of what it does. Its not that we shouldn't accept FOSS suid utilities, its just that all the integration expediencies usually associated with FOSS software don't apply. In the case I vaguely remember (wish I could remember the utility name), my view was that it was a marginally useful utility to begin with, so why should we take on this additional cost/risk. I lost the argument only because others viewed it as much more useful than I did. I think we all agreed on the cost - others just saw more benefit than I did. - jek3
