[csw-maintainers] (now about sudo)
dam at opencsw.org
Wed Feb 3 10:58:35 CET 2010
Am 03.02.2010 um 10:53 schrieb Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org>
>> Am 03.02.2010 um 07:28 schrieb Gary Law:
>>> On 29 January 2010 14:19, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <maciej at opencsw.org
>>>> The sudo_ldap non-fix was a test. Phil could have said: "fair
>>>> you fix one thing, the other thing at least doesn't get any worse,
>>>> perhaps you can do it at later time". If he did, I'd be quite
>>>> to go back to sudo_ldap after the alternatives issue gets resolved
>>>> (because it's a dependency). But instead he said "Fix this now or
>>> Can we put this to a vote? I say release now. Phil, you've already
>>> voted against, Maciej in favour. Any other votes?
>> Come on guys, Maciej didn't fix it as test, and now as it surved
>> its purpose there is no point in knowingly releasing a package
>> with a flaw which takes a minute to fix. We still do want to
>> deliver high-quality packages instead of putting oil in the fire
>> of personal animosities, do we?
> We don't, but these are intertwined issues: in order to deliver high
> quality packages you need people to be able to communicate and
> There's also the issue of the cost. I love to deliver high quality
> packages and fix bugs, but not at any cost. I'm not going to die
> There's more work to be done in order for sudo_ldap to be a
> high-quality solution. The permission problem is one thing, but the
> other is that there's no mechanism to switch the sudo versions; the
> /opt/csw/bin/sudo path will always point at sudo.minimal (non-ldap
> one). I don't like the idea of our packages trying to cope with
> custom modifications of any paths controlled by them.
Ok, does that mean "alternatives" first? I know you packaged up
Debians and looked at RedHats (?) but that was difficult to
compile. What needs to be done to finish it?
More information about the maintainers