Re: [Slashcode-development] questions regarding slashd and the user it runs under.

[CertIndex.com W. <web...@ce...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "shane" <sh...@lo...>
To: <sla...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, 17 March, 2001 07:59
Subject: Re: [Slashcode-development] questions regarding slashd and the user
it runs under.


> At 09:48 PM 3/16/2001 -0800, you wrote:
> >1. we have an account for our site, foo. should we make slashd run as
'foo'
> >then? or as nobody, the uid of the webserver.
> >if we should run it as foo, should the files all be owned by foo or
nobody?
>
> I think you're asking about personal preference, with the majority
> of what you're asking being answered by "who is maintaining your site for
you"?
> Will it be shared via SMB to maintain it? Or will you be su'ing/logging in
> as that account to do maintenance via a shell, or will no one ever be
> loggin in via a shell for the account?

we'll be logging into the shell foo to do maintenance. however, since we
have root we can also do maintenance on it if we leave it as nobody.

>
> Personally, when I install a site, I use command lines like the following:
>
> /usr/local/slash/bin/install-slashsite -u mydotcom -H www.mydotcom.com -o
> shane -g nobody -R -a webmaster -e web...@my... -p password -L y
>
> >2. in the vars table, the name field siteowner has a default value of
> >nobody. the description is "What user this runs as". what user what runs
as?
> >slashd? should this be set as nobody or foo?
>
> ps auxw - that'll show you who it's running as. what user do you
> have apache running under? httpd? nobody? apache? www?

as i said up above, apache runs under nobody. ok so that should be set to
the user slashd runs as, got it.

>
> I'd either keep it that same user, or in your case, 'foo'.

but you see no problem running slashd under our account name, foo? (i've
heard trying to run slashd under a non-default user is bad)

>
>
> >3. in the same vars table, there is the entry siteadmin    admin    The
> >admin for the site. what relevance does this var have? 'the admin for the
> >site' is,
>
> I think this is primarily used as he return-to email address when email is
> sent as coming from the 'site' itself.

hmm, can anyone else comment on this with more confidence? i don't want to
mess stuff up.

>
> >  like most other slash documentation, ambiguous.
>
> You get the code for free. Live with it.
>
> >  it should explain
> >what the thing is used for and if there is a static set of acceptable
> >values, those and what each of them means.
>
> Maybe, but you're using unfinished, Beta code.

that's irrelevant. slash 1.x has been out for over a year and it's
documentation is no better.

 See above.
> So unless you're filing a bug report,

we are doing this, quite a few of them. a number of them with fixes.

 writing code/docs for them,

offered to do this as well.

> submitting a diff,
> or submitting a suggestion,

done this dozens of times.

you're really not helping them
> finish the thing. And as with most IT projects, most of the documentation
> gets done at the end, if you're even allowed to do it properly.

s/IT/open source. fact is, coders don't enjoy doing documentation and so
when you're working on an open source project with noone to 'answer to' docs
get pushed back indefinitely.

> Ymmv, but this is just my $.02.
>
>
>   Shane
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Slashcode-development mailing list
> Sla...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-development
>