On Mar 28, Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and
set-group-id) and be owned by root.adm.
Rationale: root.adm is a better default than root.root.
This isn't a rationale, it's more like a joke.
Please explain the purpose
Better yet, read-only access to group adm and no access to world? So
permissions 275.? Should the /var/log directory be itself be
viewable/listable by world?
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 28, Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The /var/log directory should have
Ian == Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Manoj Srivastava writes (Discussion on IRC about policy):
Wednesday March 29th
18:00 CET
16:00 GMT
10:00 CDT
Ian 1600 is quite inconvenient for me. Would 1800 be possible ?
That would be fine by me (I would be more awake), but
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
How do we want these files to be?
a) All of them should be root.root.
b) All of them should be root.adm.
c) This should not be covered by policy.
I would say c) and let common sense decide.
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and
set-group-id) and be owned by root.adm.
Why group writeable?
Good question. These are the permissions Bruce Perens gave to the /var/log
* Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000329 01:47]:
---
The /var/log directory should have permissions 2755 (set-group-id)
and be owned by root.adm.
---
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:02:18PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Proposal: (to be inserted into an appropriate place in the policy docs)
The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and
set-group-id) and be owned by root.adm.
Rationale: root.adm is a better
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:02:18PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Proposal: (to be inserted into an appropriate place in the policy docs)
The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and
set-group-id) and be
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Seth R Arnold wrote:
* Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000329 01:47]:
---
The /var/log directory should have permissions 2755 (set-group-id)
and be owned by root.adm.
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: wishlist
The following proposal tries to address cases like Bug #34294.
\begin{proposal}
Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
\end{proposal}
Rationale: We should try to reduce prompting to a minimum during upgrades.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:56:31PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
---
The /var/log directory should have permissions 2755 (set-group-id)
and be owned by root.adm.
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
That would be fine by me (I would be more awake), but I think
Wichert has a deadline at 16:30. Would a later date be more
convenient?
Argh, hmm, I guess I can try to be online 18.00. I might be a bit late
though.
Wichert.
--
Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
This is going to allow adm members to delete/create logfiles, probably not
what you intended.
And modify even..
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:10:54PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
\begin{proposal}
Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
\end{proposal}
What is a `text database' ? That term seems very unclear to me; but
based on the
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:47:10PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
\begin{proposal}
Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
\end{proposal}
What is a `text database' ? That term seems very unclear to me; but
based on the bug report I'd certainly be happy to
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:47:10PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
\begin{proposal}
Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
\end{proposal}
What is a `text database' ? That term seems very unclear to me; but
based
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:47:10PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:10:54PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
\begin{proposal}
Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
\end{proposal}
What is a
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
I think this proposal is silly: for something like the cases you
mention, it is obvious that they should not be conffiles, but should
be created by the postinst if they do not already exist. It would
clearly be very stupid for these to be conffiles.
Santiago Vila wrote:
I also think this proposal should not be needed, but considering that
nobody managed so far to convince the mime-support maintainer that
/etc/mailcap being a conffile is really bad, it seems it is.
Perhaps that's because (Slink) policy says:
4.7. Configuration files
Peter S Galbraith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] saith:
Santiago Vila wrote:
I also think this proposal should not be needed, but
considering that
nobody managed so far to convince the mime-support maintainer that
/etc/mailcap being a conffile is really bad, it seems it is.
Perhaps
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 12:45:09PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
2. Files like /etc/hosts, which are install-specific. The sysadmin is
expected to change them, and should not be automagically changed without the
sysadmin knowing.
Case 1 and 2 should be conf files, but case 3 should not.
I
On 29-Mar-00, 08:40 (CST), Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
In particular,
given the update-mime program, /etc/mailcap should obviously not be a
conffile. And as it is, the maintainer should change that -- but
changing policy isn't going
On 29-Mar-00, 10:32 (CST), Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps that's because (Slink) policy says:
4.7. Configuration files
Any configuration files created or used by your package should reside
in `/etc'. If there are several you should
On 29-Mar-00, 11:45 (CST), Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there are at least three basic cases that should be considered:
1. Files like /etc/services, which are essentially global configuration.
They do not change often, but they do occasionally. They are essentially
the
Steve Greenland wrote:
On 29-Mar-00, 10:32 (CST), Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
:
Perhaps that's because (Slink) policy says:
4.7. Configuration files
Any configuration files created or used by your package should reside
in
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:54:53AM +0300, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:34:39PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
Package: man-db
Version: 2.3.15
Severity: normal
I'm not sure about this, but if FHS uses /usr/share/man, shouldn't we then
also search in
Some thoughts.
Maybe some of the problem is in how we use the BTS to manage proposals. It's
far from optimal.
For example, to see what the current problems with a proposal are,
and why it's being stalled, you more or less have to read the bug logs
in their entirety to work out the thread (and
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 61058 debian-policy
Bug#61058: FHS: /usr/local/share/man instead of /usr/local/man ?
Bug reassigned from package `man-db' to `debian-policy'.
severity 61058 normal
Bug#61058: FHS: /usr/local/share/man instead of /usr/local/man ?
Severity set
28 matches
Mail list logo
