On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 12:50:30AM +0200, Emiliano wrote: > > I felt at the beginning that you may have overseen my xml-patch with > > much impact. As long as it expects the source sitegroup link by GUID on > > the target system the import won't work. Otherwise if I would not take > > it out repligard stops with the allocation error. What is the sitegroup > > link good for during import if the sitegroup should be already addressed > > more dynamic by the sitegroup login in the conf file ? However if it's > > still really required it may have been an mistake to get it out but then > > it looks like a design bug to me. > > I really can't answer these questions, sorry. I know what sitegroups does but > very little of how repligard handles them. Alexander, please step in, I'm way > out of my depth here. I was unable yesterday access my mailbox and only looked into through marc.theaimsgroup.com. I think the main problem here is that sitegroup record itself should be created using root priviledges and after that user data should be put into it using account specified in repligard.conf.
However, if I would put a wrapper in repligard_create_fake_resource() for processing non-existent sitegroups in that way it will open a security hole because then every user will be able to create his/her own sitegroup without even knowing administrator's account. This is not what I would like to see. The only one solution I can propose is to export sitegroup record information into different file and require to import it with admin priviledges _before_ importing whole sitegroup data itself. What do you guys think? -- / Alexander Bokovoy $ cat /proc/identity >~/.signature `Senior software developer and analyst for SaM-Solutions Ltd.` --- A lack of leadership is no substitute for inaction. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
