On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Lennart Poettering
<mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 09.10.12 21:26, Matthew Miller (mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 05:19:59PM -0700, J. Randall Owens wrote:
>> > Just on the naming, I'd rather steer clear of the actual concept, let me
>> > get this straight: You want a group called "adm", presumably short for
>> > "administrator", the point of which is that it can view system things,
>> > but not actually *administer* them? Why on Earth call it "adm"?
>>
>> The group is already there, so it's not a big stretch, but I agree the
>> naming is confusing when used in this way. ("wheel" isn't exactly
>> straightforward either, but at least it's Traditional.)
>
> As I already mentioned: "adm" has been around for along time, and has
> been used in this context in Debian since about forever. We just adopted
> the same logic in systemd that already made sense on Debian for a long
> time.
>
> In systemd we try to unify Linux a bit, part of that is to take
> influences and be inspired by the various distros around. In this case
> the Debian way made most sense to us, so we made it the default in
> systemd, too.
Maybe you could take more influences and be inspired by debian to
split some of the non core requirements of systemd off into some sub
packages so people can remove http, qrencode and possibly even the
journal if they so wished.
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
