Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group

View: New views

5 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

	Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group by Kurt Roeckx :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.0.1 Severity: minor There are several places in policy that use something like "root.root", when talking about the owner and group of a file. People used to use that notation to separate the owner and group, and it still works, but the proper notation would be "root:root". I found atleast the following: - 9.1.2: root.staff (also has a proper chown call.) - 10.9: root.root - 11.6: <user>.mail, root.mail - 11.11: root.games (2 times) Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group by Ian Jackson :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group"): > There are several places in policy that use something like "root.root", > when talking about the owner and group of a file. People used to use > that notation to separate the owner and group, and it > still works, but the proper notation would be "root:root". What is wrong with <user>.<group> ? I see that it's not currently documented but it has worked forever and I hope it's not going away. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group by Luk Claes :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group"): >> There are several places in policy that use something like "root.root", >> when talking about the owner and group of a file. People used to use >> that notation to separate the owner and group, and it >> still works, but the proper notation would be "root:root". > > What is wrong with <user>.<group> ? I see that it's not currently > documented but it has worked forever and I hope it's not going away. A <username> can contain a '.' Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group by Russ Allbery-2 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Ian Jackson <ian@...> writes: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group"): >> There are several places in policy that use something like "root.root", >> when talking about the owner and group of a file. People used to use >> that notation to separate the owner and group, and it still works, but >> the proper notation would be "root:root". > What is wrong with <user>.<group> ? I see that it's not currently > documented but it has worked forever and I hope it's not going away. It's been deprecated for a long time because it's ambiguous in the presence of usernames containing periods. Since a username on UNIX is never permitted to have a colon due to the format of the passwd file, colon is a better delimiter. Support for periods probably won't ever go away, but best practice is to use colons. -- Russ Allbery (rra@...) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group by Don Armstrong :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group"): > > There are several places in policy that use something like "root.root", > > when talking about the owner and group of a file. People used to use > > that notation to separate the owner and group, and it > > still works, but the proper notation would be "root:root". > > What is wrong with <user>.<group> ? I see that it's not currently > documented but it has worked forever and I hope it's not going away. . can potentially be a character in a username or groupname. While using . has worked for a long time, it should not be advocated in policy, and portable scripts should not use it. Don Armstrong -- Sentenced to two years hard labor (for sodomy), Oscar Wilde stood handcuffed in driving rain waiting for transport to prison. "If this is the way Queen Victoria treats her prisoners," he remarked, "she doesn't deserve to have any." http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

	Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group by Kurt Roeckx :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.0.1 Severity: minor There are several places in policy that use something like "root.root", when talking about the owner and group of a file. People used to use that notation to separate the owner and group, and it still works, but the proper notation would be "root:root". I found atleast the following: - 9.1.2: root.staff (also has a proper chown call.) - 10.9: root.root - 11.6: <user>.mail, root.mail - 11.11: root.games (2 times) Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group by Ian Jackson :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group"): > There are several places in policy that use something like "root.root", > when talking about the owner and group of a file. People used to use > that notation to separate the owner and group, and it > still works, but the proper notation would be "root:root". What is wrong with <user>.<group> ? I see that it's not currently documented but it has worked forever and I hope it's not going away. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group by Luk Claes :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group"): >> There are several places in policy that use something like "root.root", >> when talking about the owner and group of a file. People used to use >> that notation to separate the owner and group, and it >> still works, but the proper notation would be "root:root". > > What is wrong with <user>.<group> ? I see that it's not currently > documented but it has worked forever and I hope it's not going away. A <username> can contain a '.' Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group by Russ Allbery-2 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Ian Jackson <ian@...> writes: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group"): >> There are several places in policy that use something like "root.root", >> when talking about the owner and group of a file. People used to use >> that notation to separate the owner and group, and it still works, but >> the proper notation would be "root:root". > What is wrong with <user>.<group> ? I see that it's not currently > documented but it has worked forever and I hope it's not going away. It's been deprecated for a long time because it's ambiguous in the presence of usernames containing periods. Since a username on UNIX is never permitted to have a colon due to the format of the passwd file, colon is a better delimiter. Support for periods probably won't ever go away, but best practice is to use colons. -- Russ Allbery (rra@...) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group by Don Armstrong :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#488039: policy: chown uses owner:group not owner.group"): > > There are several places in policy that use something like "root.root", > > when talking about the owner and group of a file. People used to use > > that notation to separate the owner and group, and it > > still works, but the proper notation would be "root:root". > > What is wrong with <user>.<group> ? I see that it's not currently > documented but it has worked forever and I hope it's not going away. . can potentially be a character in a username or groupname. While using . has worked for a long time, it should not be advocated in policy, and portable scripts should not use it. Don Armstrong -- Sentenced to two years hard labor (for sodomy), Oscar Wilde stood handcuffed in driving rain waiting for transport to prison. "If this is the way Queen Victoria treats her prisoners," he remarked, "she doesn't deserve to have any." http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...