Request 992020 (accepted)

Overview

Request 992020 accepted

No description set

Created by rmax almost 2 years ago
In state accepted

Submit bind

Comments for request 992020 4

Fabian Vogt (favogt) - almost 2 years ago

Why not just have samba own the directory?

Reinhard Max (rmax) - almost 2 years ago

author source maintainer

Because other packages might need it as well in the future and a directory should ideally only be owned by a single package, e.g. to avoid discrepancies in ownership and permissions. I see the directory as part of the interface that bind provides, and samba uses that by putting a file in.

Would you say that there is anything wrong with that?

Fabian Vogt (favogt) - almost 2 years ago

It's not technically wrong, it's just that usually the packages which provide dropins also own the directory.

Reinhard Max (rmax) - almost 2 years ago

author source maintainer

... with NetworkManager being the counter-example. ;)

Maybe it should be standard that a directory for drop-ins has to go with each service file, ideally through a macro that installs the .service and creates the directory.

One valid technical reason that just occurred to me would be cases in which the dropper can be installed while the droppee is not, because in that case the dir would not be owned by a package.

And that would actually be the case for bind and samba, I guess. :-/