On Wed, Dec 23, 1998 at 06:05:19PM -0000, Scott Ballantyne wrote:
> John Gonzalez/netMDC admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > If we constantly rely on RPM's to do for us the fundamental things of
> > installing, and we get USED to that, we are going experience serious
> > problems in the future.
>
> I agree with this comment, 100%. Dan has good reasons (and is not
> alone) in not wanting to use the getpwent stuff.
Why should getpw* be needed? There have been suggestions on other
methods. This is a comment on one possible implementation of using
files to define the qmail uids, and using it as an argument against
implementing file-based uids is consistent with djb's dodging the
issue that a design choice he has made has a weakness, and he doesn't
want to admit it and add flexability at no security cost to qmail.
> Given that, he's
> asking what the advantages are to using a config file over the present
> arrangement. The arguments seem to reduce to people saying that they
> either can't use RPM to install qmail or they can't use RPM to do
> security audits, neither of which sound like very strong arguments to
> me.
How about:
It's easier for the user.
It makes qmail more transparent to the user.
It makes qmail easier to reconfigure (didn't you say once that you
should always code for flexability?)
It lets qmail be installed in stripped-down environments. It allows
updates to be distributed for those environments where commercial-ware
doesn't allow for distribution of compilers and/or development tools.
-Peter
