Tomas Pospisek <t...@sourcepole.ch> wrote: > I am guessing that the reason for the "wontfix" is "that's just how > Unix works unfortunately" aka "that's a Unix design bug"? Is my guess > correct?
I would call it a "Unix design decision" or even an "OS design decision", because Windows (of the NT variant) has made the same decision: Not allowing changes to running programs or sessions vastly simplifies everything. (Yes, with AD you can refresh some of the memberships in a purely Kerberos environment and for local group you can use "runas" to get the new groups for a new process, but the same can be done in Unix as well.) In the then I can see the designers thinking "a change in group membership is happening not often, allowing or optimizing this use case will be a huge hassle" and thus never implemented or even mandated its existance. And now this is so baked in to everything that suddenly allowing it would break many programs, without a doubt. In the end, this tag is a more "cantfix" than a "wontfix", because you basically can't, without creating a new OS. Grüße, Sven. -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
