--- "A.J. Rossini" <rossini@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> "paul" == Paul Baker <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> paul> On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 01:43 AM, Robert Collins
> wrote:
>
> >> The *real* solution is to fix dpkg. Checking for being root is
> a broken
> >> test. Checking if the current user has the appropriate access
> is a more
> >> flexible and portable test.
>
> paul> NO NO NO NO NO!!! It is absolutely needed. You don't get
> it. It is
> paul> needed during the final packaging stages because when the
> built
> paul> binaries are tar'd up, THEY HAVE TO BE OWNED BY ROOT
> because this tar
> paul> is then extracted directly into the filesystem when that
> package is
> paul> installed later on someone's machine. You do not want
> programs being
> paul> installed into /usr/bin owned by some random user that had
> the same
> paul> uid as some random developer. THEY HAVE TO BE OWNED BY
> ROOT!
>
>
> I agree with Paul, but for completely different reasons. Under
> Microsoft Windows, isn't the name of the Administrator rather
> arbitrary? So it seems like the correct approach might be to
> discover
> users with the right permissions, and probe for which to run under
> (I've seen setups (not recently, but back in the old days when I had
> to use NT) where there was no Administrator user, that being
> renamed to something else, like God, or PowerfulUserFromHell.
Yes, in our poor Chapter 11 company the Admins have renamed all the
Adminstrators to jmsmith. The uid is still 500, the description is
still the same as the adminitrator. Most people still have the same uid
and under winMe, there is still no security at all.
Mike
=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
|
