Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
Hi Craig,
I want Debian to be usable as a reliable production server. This is
what is required.
In response to a statement like the one above, with which you
obviously disagree, you really have a few options: (1) show that it
is not required on a reliable production server; or (2) ask for an
addition to the Debian policy documentat stating that Debian should
not, by default, be usable as a reliable production server; or
(3) propose a different solution and show that it solves the
problem equally well.
But I think that we have demonstrated that it is required on a reliable
production server; and I think very few on the Debian list would back such
a change to Debian policy. We have switched from one solution to another
several times over the course of this discussion, so we are obviously
open to the possibility that you might think up something new that works.
We have also rejected several proposals that wouldn't work.
Also, you haven't really added anything useful to the dialogue in the
message I've quoted before, but your angry and inflammatory language
is likely to degrade the quality of the list. I understand this is a
controversial issue; perhaps you should "postpone" your response to
messages you disagree with for 10 minutes or so, then re-edit them
for politeness.
Justin
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 08:39:46AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 06:01:31PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > * Nathaniel Smith said:
> >
> > > First, the security: while it may be theoretically possible to put wrappers
> > > around passwd and so on, ensuring that the two accounts are kept in sync is
> > [snip]
> > > exists at all. This of course might be an acceptable cost if it gained us
> > > a great deal, but I maintain that it does not.
> > Well, as Justin has noted that extra account may be disabled. And only
> > the administrator who a) wants to use it, b) is conscious of all the
> > extra effort would enable it.
>
> this thing has turned around to a ridiculous degree in the last
> day or so. consensus has been established that having an optional
> static binaries package wouldn't be such a bad thing. note that word
> "optional".
>
> stop and think for a minute: YOU and Justin and one or two others are
> the ones who want the static shell etc....yet you somehow think that it
> is EVERYONE ELSE who has to fuck around with their systems to get it
> BACK to the way it was before.
>
> NO FUCKING WAY!
>
> You want something extra, something optional...that's fine. just don't
> try to force it on everyone else.
>
> if you want to run freebsd with their root and toor account, then go and
> run freebsd - don't try to make debian into a clone.
>
> craig
>
> --
> craig sanders
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: