On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:31 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:21:28PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > Axel, you couldn't choose a worst example :) > > I didn't choose it, it's in the proposal. I know :) > > Amanda is also a real name (female in Italy), so it is plausible that > > you have such user in your system. > > I know, it's very popular name especially in the US. I'm currently > reading baby name books ... ;) wow :) > > It is also entirely possible that the admin does not know that such user > > exists as users may come from ldap,nis,winbindd and not created by such > > admin but by someone else. > > Well in that spirit it is also possible that the master admin manages > /usr/local and has put something else called amanda in there. The > point is we can't cater for all possible local configurations like > split adminstration, we need to make some assumptions to remain sane. ok, I should have used the term plausible, and plausible is different from possible. So while I think it is possible but rare to find an admin to create a directory that conflicts with a package it is instead plausible he find a name in the user db that conflicts. > > I think at least a check to see if the "amanda" user is < 1000 would > > make a lot of sense. > > Then maybe it makes more sense to have "useradd -r" fail when the user > is > 500, e.g. outside the desired -r switch instead of obscuring the > specfiles with wrappers, scripts, registries and all that. :) dunno, maybe this is really better, but limiting system user to 500 could be a problem. To be honest I think the username should always be configurable and configuration be made by a config script run by the admin so that the admin can take a conscious decision, but we are stuck with the fact that rpm "owns" file (-V) and that it can't be interactive. Simo. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
