[Logcheck-devel] newer logcheck-database file with wrong gid

[Todd Troxell]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 08:58:47PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Todd Troxell wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 05:58:00PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > On Sun, 29 May 2005, CVS User ttroxell wrote:
> <snipp>
> > > i'm repeatably beaten by that revert.
> > > do a simple:  sudo find /etc/logcheck/ -gid 0
> > > and you won't be surprised. :-P
> > *nodnod* 
> 
> ok, so we'll fix it. ;)
>  
> > > please name the paragraph in the policy you have in mind?
> > 
> > Sorry, I was making things up.  It would appear that It's not disallowed by
> > policy.  The original complaint is in this archived report[0].
> 
> fine for me.
>  
> > > base-passwd states that packages should cope with dynamically allocated
> > > system users and groups.
> > > "packages should avoid requesting such ids"
> > 
> > Hmm.  We can add a conditional chown to dh_installlogcheck.
> > [The condition being whether or not we have a logcheck user yet.]
> 
> agreed the getent passwd check can't harm.
>  
> > It will also require yet another overwrite of all /etc/logcheck perms.
> > 
> > [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=287184;archive=yes
> 
> afair the bug report was about our restrictive chmod setting.
> but i'll look up. yes it was.
> remember to speak on irc with the bug reporter telling me that he
> exports his /etc setting for an unpriveleged svn user.

I have a feeling the same argument would be raised about chown.

> the chown is need on every upgrade in my opinion, as every upgrade
> adds potentially a new logcheck-database rulefile.

Ahh! I had not considered *our* new files upon upgrading.  Perhaps we also
should be using dh_installlogcheck in logcheck-database.  Too much overhead?

-- 
Todd Troxell
http://rapidpacket.com/~xtat