[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] adding http user/group to filesystems

[Arvid Ephraim Picciani]

On Sunday 22 June 2008 19:41:33 Jan de Groot wrote:

> Bad system design is something else than leaving people on their own to
> secure things. 

Depends on your opinion,... 

> These user accounts own files. 

So you're trying to fix a problem that wouldnt be there if arch would use the 
default upstream package, which doesnt contain user owned files.  
See why i think the debian way is bad? They're stacking problems since ages, 
which results in scripts fixing the results of other scripts.

> Do you think it's sane to  
> tell users to chown the files back to the user they assigned to it on
> every package upgrade?

Yes. If the users decide to  use software in a way not supported by the 
upstream (there are no user owned files in the default packages...)
then they have to handle the results on their own (PKGBUILD is so easy...)

I'm doing this with exim for ages now to add ssl and i feel it is a lot less 
painfull then what has been done with qt,linux,apache,etc where i have to 
make my own pkgbuild to get rid of unverified patches, automatic installer 
scripts, fucked up default configs (arch apache config - a debian rip of-  
STILL uses AddType, after it has been deprecated for like 10 years), and 
whatever things people add when they have too much time.

Every new script you add makes the mess worse. Just look at debian. If you 
like the way debian "works", go on. I don't.

> Pacman takes backups of configuration files, but 
> doesn't preserve ownership on a package upgrade.

Can't find any server software on my machines that has user owned config 
files. 

-- 
best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Arvid Ephraim Picciani