• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Package Maker ownership issues
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Package Maker ownership issues


  • Subject: Re: Package Maker ownership issues
  • From: Jakub Bednar <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:24:09 +0200


On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:56 PM, Iceberg-Dev wrote:


On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Jakub Bednar wrote:


On Oct 2, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Greg Neagle wrote:

user/group info for filesystem items is _always_ stored as numeric
values.
When you create your user, specify the UID at that time as well.


Hi Greg,
        I was thinking about this in the first place, but I don't
think it is a correct solution, as there is no guarantee that the
UID is not already taken on target system.

That's why I think it should be possible to specify the user/group
by names. If there is no such user or group on the system, the
installation will fail, so it is the
responsibility of the installer to create such user/group.

Actually I think there should be 3 ways of specifying ownership:

1. UID/GID number, installed software will be owned by exactly this
user/group. (good for well known users/groups: root, admin, wheel)
2. user/group name, installed software will be owned by user/group
specified by this name. (good for newly created users/groups by the
installation process)
3. no user/group specified, meaning that the files should be owned
by user/group running the installer.

You really don't even want to think about it:

- Considering that there were/are a bunch of packages being
distributed with uid/gid set to 501 (or 502), millions of users will
end up with new user accounts.

- An installer that creates users/groups during installation is
probably a potential security risk in most of the cases.

- It's not the job of the installer to second-guess the package and
payload contents.


Well ok,

You are probably right in 99% of the cases. But I'm installing a transparent proxy that needs a unique UID in the system to take advantage of UID matching in firewall rules. Never mind, there are workarounds. I was just wondering why it is not supported.

Thanks a lot,

Jakub

P.S. There is a bunch of Linux/FreeBSD software that is creating new user accounts in the system for their purposes. It is just a normal way of doing things on Linux/FreeBSD. There is also no problem to create an invisible user without home directory and password with the dscl utility, so why not support it in Installers?




_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden

_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Package Maker ownership issues
      • From: Iceberg-Dev <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Package Maker ownership issues (From: Jakub Bednar <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Package Maker ownership issues (From: Greg Neagle <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Package Maker ownership issues (From: Jakub Bednar <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Package Maker ownership issues (From: Iceberg-Dev <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Iceberg Control Tower?
  • Next by Date: PackageMaker allow for optional install?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Package Maker ownership issues
  • Next by thread: Re: Package Maker ownership issues
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread