Re: Setuid programs

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Gábor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com> skribis:

> I have two reasons for that: backwards compatibility is really
> important, so we should not break it, and I believe this would not be
> hard to do.
> On the other hand it would be nice to have a more integrated backend,
> and move as many things into the services infrastructure as practical,
> and I think this is a good candidate for that. Wdyt?

There’s already ‘setuid-program-service-type’.  I think the way forward
would be to:

  1. Define the <setuid-program> record type you propose.

  2. Have ‘setuid-program-service-type’ accept that through its
     extensions.  When it receives something else, it should
     transparently turn it into a <setuid-program> record, for backward
     compatibility, and emit a deprecation warning.

  3. Document the OS ‘setuid-programs’ field as taking a list of such
     records.

How does that sound?

Thanks,
Ludo’.