Re: Setuid programs

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

Ludovic Courtès writes:

> 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’.

This sounds like a good plan.  I'm taking a stab at it, but there's a
good chance I'll get it wrong, so review will be seriously needed.
Let's find out how I do!