On Mon Jun 12 10:11:41 2000, Simon Burge wrote:
> 
> Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> 
> > On Mon Jun 12 04:25:47 2000, Simon Burge wrote:
> > > 
> > > Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I have the following problem with postfix:
> > > > 
> > > > #  postfix check
> > > > postfix-script: warning: not owned by root: /usr/libexec/postfix/bounce
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > That happens because I set BINOWN?= and BINGRP?= /etc/mk.conf
> > > > so these programms are not owned by root.
> > > 
> > > Is this because postfix thinks the One True Binary Owner should be
> > > "root"?  There's no setuid programs in postfix, so if you've got BINOWN
> > > set then I think it should be assumed that you know what you're doing.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps postfix-script should be installed with the current setting of
> > > $BINOWN instead of a hard-coded "root"?
> > 
> > No, I don't want to change it.
> > I only want to know if it is okay to use the ? in the BINOWN?=.
> 
> This shouldn't make things any worse.  From the original patch, is the
> "BINGRP?=" needed?

Yes, because the BINGRP= in gnu/usr.sbin/postfix/Makefile.inc overwrites
the BINGRP=maildrop in gnu/usr.sbin/postfix/postdrop/Makefile :(

We don't use BINGRP?= in all the other Makefiles so i am unsure about the
use of it.

> >From what I see in postfix, there's nothing that really needs the
> binaries to be owned by root - if you as the system's builder decide
> that BINOWN shouldn't be root, then I can see no reason why postfix
> should be any different...

We shouldn't add to much magic in the orginal script.

Bernd