Honing "More Control and Package Users"

Kevin Buckley kevin.m.buckley at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 16:09:14 PDT 2010


On 2 August 2010 10:29, Timothy Rice <t.rice at ms.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

> --------------- Idea #2 ---------------
>
> The original hint does not provide much guidance for what group name to
> assign to each package. I think it is good practice, where possible, to
> make the user name equal to "<group name>-<version number>".
>
> For example, when installing man-pages according to LFS 6.6, the command
> would be,
>
>   install_package \
>        'The Man-pages package contains over 1,900 man pages.' \
>        man-pages-3.23 man-pages
>
> Then make the default home directory /usr/<group>/<user>, eg
> /usr/man-pages/man-pages-3.23.


For me, that'd be overkill.

If you come to upgrade, say man pages, then you can easily get a list
of all files
owned by the man-pages user BEFORE doing the upgrade.

List them and, even though you are using the same username for the new install,
it'd be reasonably easy to find any that are no longer in the new
package and which
thus should be binned as no longer being part of that package.

What might be a way forwards here, assuming you want to keep the old files
around, would be to change the group-name for files that become orphaned
through a package upgrade to have a versioned group name.

I still think that is overkill though.

As to the group names,

> The original hint does not provide much guidance for what group name to
> assign to each package

The original hint gives THREE choices of approach !

Furthermore, it also says, in respect of the username = groupname
approach, which it recommends, that:

   An important advantage of this scheme is that the user information is
   not lost when you make a file setuid root, which requires changing
   the file's owner.

so I think the original hint was pretty clear as to what the guidance
is reagrding
what the group names should be, no ?

Just my thre'pen'th though.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list