Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 23:13:34 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: =?koi8-r?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-usrsbin@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/mtree create.c misc.c mtree.8 mtree.c mtree.h verify.c Message-ID: <199806051513.XAA01847@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Jun 1998 19:06:06 %2B0400." <19980605190606.A25758@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=?koi8-r?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 1998 at 07:43:45AM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: > > owners. Primary intended targets: /usr/src and /usr/obj. > > I agree. My v1.5 change goal was things like /var/mail symlinked > permissions which can lead to security leaks when overlooked by mtree. I also originally had a knob in /etc/mtree to control the default behavior as well, but in the end decided to take that out too. There are already too many things in there, and I figured that this change would fix the outstanding problems now that we don't symlink the temp build tree to the src tree and run mtree on that (and hence change the src tree owners). > I don't care about /usr/src and /usr/obj permissions at all, so "nochange" > is better for them. Also, I note that we don't have a /usr/ports entry there at all. Perhaps we should have a "ports nochange" entry too? (bsd.port.mk also refers to /usr/ports explicitly.) Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806051513.XAA01847>