Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
#2314 closed defect (fixed)
uucp and usb groups
| Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 7.0 |
| Component: | Book | Version: | SVN |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
The uucp group is not created, but is referenced in both the default udev rules and the 55-lfs udev rules.
The usb device is not normally needed. If it is needed, then let BLFS handle it.
Perhaps, we should just s/usb/uucp in chapter06/createfiles.xml.
Change History (5)
comment:1 by , 16 years ago
comment:2 by , 16 years ago
I agree with your thoughts in principle. However, the current rules in -dev reference uucp. I think the change should be made now and then we can readdress the uucp group when udev doesn't use it any more.
comment:4 by , 16 years ago
As of Udev-137, now in the book, the default Udev rules no longer reference the uucp group. What do we want to do about this ticket? The LFS rules still reference the uucp group, but we still have #2297 open to deal with syncing those up with upstream rules.
comment:5 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Any remaining pieces of this have been fixed in r8841. :-)
IIRC, there was some messing about with the usb group in trying to handle various USB bus devices as non-root users. I can't remember if the issue was that the usb group was insecure (but needed at the time), or that not using the usb group was insecure somehow. Alexander may remember. Otherwise I'll see if I can find anything helpful...
Oh, I see -- it was discussed in BLFS ticket 2065, which was (likely) the impetus for this ticket. :-P If the usb group was created only as a workaround and is no longer needed, then sure, kill it. :-)
As far as the uucp group, upstream had a conversation recently about the uucp/dialout groups in rules. Debian (at least) uses the uucp group to run an actual uucp daemon, and do so securely; users are (AFAICT) not a member of that group. They use the dialout group to allow users to create PPP-like connections. I *think* the upstream rules were moving in that direction, or at least one of the udev maintainers said they liked it. I don't see the actual udev git tree having changed yet. Maybe it was forgotten.
I think dialout makes a lot more sense than uucp for those devices anyway (and would be in favor of s/uucp/dialout/g, plus adding a dialout group), but I would guess some people may disagree. ;-) Waiting for the next udev may also be a good idea (that's part of the reason that I haven't been doing much with our rule differences: they're changing a bunch of their rules).