From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O7ubk-0001bb-FU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:06:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53D01E087F; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:06:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.152]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1DEE0837 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:06:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 19so167617fgg.10 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.87.48.34 with SMTP id a34mr4597891fgk.2.1272650777456; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pomiot.lan (87-205-235-100.adsl.inetia.pl [87.205.235.100]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e3sm4942135fga.14.2010.04.30.11.06.16 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Spam Box Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:07:26 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] A policy to support random superuser account names Message-ID: <20100430200726.298ae94c@pomiot.lan> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/kNBA/hZiMQ6=SjzrQ+YC+7Q"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 6965887c-fc5a-4ab5-bba6-3c67f983a36a X-Archives-Hash: b8e0f861f47781850ad062e37af6aa29 --Sig_/kNBA/hZiMQ6=SjzrQ+YC+7Q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I would like to put an emphasis on the fact that many eclasses and ebuilds in gx86 are relying on an assumption that the superuser account is always supposed to be named 'root'. In fact, no such constraint exists. Although most users will never even think of changing the superuser account name, it is perfectly legit to do so, and to use any name for that account. Moreover, it is perfectly legit to name an unprivileged user 'root' too. Thus, the above assumption is clearly incorrect and may result in many issues with ebuilds using it. These range from builds failing because of chown 'invalid user' error to packages being installed with incorrect file ownership. =46rom what I've heard already, similar problem has hit Gentoo/*BSD users already, with superuser group not being named 'root'. Although some files were fixed to properly use numeric GID in the specific case, no UID-related changes were done. Moreover, not all developers agree with the case being an issue, and they even refuse patches clearly fixing it [1]. Thus, I guess that a clear policy regarding referencing the superuser account should be enforced. In my opinion, that policy should clearly indicate that the numeric UID/GID should be always used for referencing the superuser account as they are fixed unlike the names. [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D315779 --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/kNBA/hZiMQ6=SjzrQ+YC+7Q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkvbHGMACgkQnGSe5QXeB7s9gwCgkxIGVsM4HmtneSZ6OV634r6y ln0AninrkIcDiuBZMv7TNN3DHeGdOiYK =6MZC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/kNBA/hZiMQ6=SjzrQ+YC+7Q--