Anybody working on removing sendmail from base?
cpressey at catseye.mine.nu
Wed Oct 1 19:55:31 PDT 2003
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:47:44 -0600
Mike Porter <mupi at xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As I said before, I don't see the point/need to make a program
> 'unavailable' to a user (in any sense except that typing, for example,
> 'gcc --version' will result in a different value).
What if I have users that I don't want to run gcc at all? Granted,
today I would set up groups and make gcc group-executable only - but
this VFS-viewfs way seems much more elegant, because they wouldn't even
have to know gcc exists.
> To me, the idea of a program being unavailable
> means that no matter what I do as the user, I will never see/know that
> the program is installed. This to me is overkill.
It IS overkill, for package management. But it's not just for package
management, right? Done correctly, it could unify a number of disparate
mechanisms currently in place. chroot, for one.
But anyway, it's an academic discussion at this point, since it would be
a good idea to implement variant symlinks, if only to evaluate them.
More information about the Kernel