Re: CUPS: Add root to system-groups to make GNOME's print functionality work correctly?
In my opinion, desktop printers tools should trigger actions as same
desktop user account.
lpadmin group ever should be allowed on all related features.
__________
I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't
masked enough at lists.debian.org archives.
El 25/11/16 a les 13:10, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud ha escrit:
> Hi there Till,
>
> Le jeudi, 24 novembre 2016, 16.33:40 h CET Till Kamppeter a écrit :
>> there is a long-standing bug report in Ubuntu (…) about that one cannot stop
>> or delete print jobs from the "Printers" section of GNOME Control Center.
>>
>> The trivial-looking fix is to add root to the system groups (see comment
>> #17), via a ./configure option (from patch of comment #24):
>> (…)
>> Is there any reason not having root in system-groups? Does Debian solve
>> this problem another way?
>
> As you can see in https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=466338 , upstream
> points to the fact that as cups-pk-helper runs as root (really !?), it "talks
> to CUPS" as root, and not as the user doing the requests.
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/698504 has a partial fix for that, but it only fixes
> "user in lpadmin can now talk to cups-pk-helper". I suspect Debian users have
> just grown to put routinely put their users in the 'lpadmin' group.
>
> Digging history, the 1.0.2-1 changelog entry (from 17 years ago) has:
>> Created "lpadmin" group and set SystemGroup to this. This will
>> fix problems with CUPS not being usable initially. As soon as
>> bug #50620 gets fixed, I'll set up to add root to the group, which
>> will make root able to configure CUPS immediately after installation.
>
> This never happened, apparently. We can either do that (put 'root' in the
> 'lpadmin' group on upgrade), or add the 'root' group as SystemGroup.
>
> I don't spot immediate flaws or possible regressions created by adding the
> 'root' group as SystemGroup, and kinda-like the original plan (keeping
> 'lpadmin' the only group allowed to administer CUPS).
>
> Opinions ?
>
Reply to: