On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 15:40 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:34:58PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Documentation mentions su -c "command" all over the place. You have to > > consider whether you want to mention sudo or su or both if this is made > > a option. Dismissing concerns as poor without being involved is pretty > > easy. Documentation is far from the only concern with adding more options. > > We could easily set up the sudoers file like this: > > a) for wheel-group members, auth-as-self. > b) for non-wheel-group-members, sudo prompts for the *root* password. > > Then, 'su -c "command"' could be replaced with "sudo command" in the > documentation and would be correct in both cases. And since sudo has several > advantages over 'su -c', this is a win-win. We specifically settled on 'su -c' because we couldn't count on the existence of a properly configured sudoers file. We even have a simple sudo how-to that we were going to put in front as a "requirement", but the chance that someone is dropping in to a document via Google is too great to have any kind of enforceable requirements. If there were a reliable sudo situation, I doubt there would be any objection to adjusting the docs to use the superior method. - Karsten, NOPASSWD: ALL -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
