On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:19:05AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Makes sense that tmpfiles.d comes from systemd, if he's trying to get
> away from shell scripts. But for those who think it's annoying to have
> to put 3 separate steps in your init script 'start' section (mkdir -p,
> chown, chmod)
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 at 11:19:05 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> But for those who think it's annoying to have
> to put 3 separate steps in your init script 'start' section (mkdir -p,
> chown, chmod), I'd like to point out that you may as well just use
> install -d, and do it all in one step.
... a
[Roger Leigh]
> tmpfiles.d comes from systemd, but we could adopt the concept
> without systemd being involved. If we didn't adopt tmpfiles.d,
> it would be the responsibility of the init script to create
> the necessary directories.
Makes sense that tmpfiles.d comes from systemd, if he's trying
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 07:36:26PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:00:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:35:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > Are these any other downsides we ne
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:03:59PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Fedora has moved to having /var/lock (now /run/lock) owned by
> > root:lock 0775 rather than root:root 01777. This has the advantage
> > of making a sys
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:00:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:35:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > Are these any other downsides we need to consider? One issue is the
> > > existence of badly broken pr
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:35:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Fedora has moved to having /var/lock (now /run/lock) owned by
> > root:lock 0775 rather than root:root 01777. This has the advantage
> > of making a system directory wri
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Fedora has moved to having /var/lock (now /run/lock) owned by
> root:lock 0775 rather than root:root 01777. This has the advantage
> of making a system directory writable only by root or setgid lock
> programs, rather than the whole wo
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:03:59PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Fedora has moved to having /var/lock (now /run/lock) owned by
> > root:lock 0775 rather than root:root 01777. This has the advantage
> > of making a sys
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Fedora has moved to having /var/lock (now /run/lock) owned by
> root:lock 0775 rather than root:root 01777. This has the advantage
> of making a system directory writable only by root or setgid lock
> programs, rather th
* Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) [110815 17:12]:
> Are these any other downsides we need to consider? One issue is the
> existence of badly broken programs³, which make stupid assumptions
> about lockfiles.
This will break all existing programms on an partial upgrades. There
are three ways to
Hi folks,
Fedora has moved to having /var/lock (now /run/lock) owned by
root:lock 0775 rather than root:root 01777. This has the advantage
of making a system directory writable only by root or setgid lock
programs, rather than the whole world. However, due to the
potential for privilege escalati
12 matches
Mail list logo
