Hi,
Should configs files of a package be patched to have settings that make it work more or less out of the box (as far as possible, some setting like DB access etc. just can't be filled in in advance)?
I came across a package that defines to use "nogroup" in its config file as effective group (Fedora has no "nogroup", but has group "nobody") and defines to put a pid file in /var/run (which fails, as it appears to do that as nobody/nobody when running).
Should this config file have been patched to use "nobody" as group and should the package (for example) include a package-specific directory below /var/run to put its own pid file in (and patch the config file to use this directory for pid files)?
Just wondering if it is worth filing bugs against this package because of the above (easy to solve) issues...
Cheers,
-- -- Jos Vos jos@xos.nl -- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 -- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 18:50 +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
Hi,
Should configs files of a package be patched to have settings that make it work more or less out of the box (as far as possible, some setting like DB access etc. just can't be filled in in advance)?
I came across a package that defines to use "nogroup" in its config file as effective group (Fedora has no "nogroup", but has group "nobody") and defines to put a pid file in /var/run (which fails, as it appears to do that as nobody/nobody when running).
Should this config file have been patched to use "nobody" as group and should the package (for example) include a package-specific directory below /var/run to put its own pid file in (and patch the config file to use this directory for pid files)?
Just wondering if it is worth filing bugs against this package because of the above (easy to solve) issues...
I think the problem is twofold: if the package as shipped requires the existence of a particular group, it's the responsibility of the packager to ensure that the group exists on the system. So as part of the install scripts (probably in %pre) you need to create the group on the system.
That said, it would be best to work with upstream to add a configure option to select the group most appropriate for each platform.
Dne 12.8.2011 18:50, Jos Vos napsal(a):
Should configs files of a package be patched to have settings that make it work more or less out of the box (as far as possible, some setting like DB access etc. just can't be filled in in advance)?
There are many caveats to this answer, but I think generally speaking the answer is “Yes”. Isn't it a whole purpose of package maintenance to integrate all those various programs into one distribution which works together?
Matěj
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 18:50 +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
Hi,
Should configs files of a package be patched to have settings that make it work more or less out of the box (as far as possible, some setting like DB access etc. just can't be filled in in advance)?
If possible and does not really need individual configuration by a system administrator, yes.
I came across a package that defines to use "nogroup" in its config file as effective group (Fedora has no "nogroup", but has group "nobody") and defines to put a pid file in /var/run (which fails, as it appears to do that as nobody/nobody when running).
Should this config file have been patched to use "nobody" as group and should the package (for example) include a package-specific directory below /var/run to put its own pid file in (and patch the config file to use this directory for pid files)?
It is generally insecure to share groups/uids between different system daemons.