slashcode-development

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

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

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?

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?

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, like most other slash documentation, ambiguous. 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.

regards

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

[shane <sh...@lo...>]

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?

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?

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


>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.

>  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. See above.
So unless you're filing a bug report, writing code/docs for them, 
submitting a diff,
or submitting a suggestion, 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.
Ymmv, but this is just my $.02.


  Shane

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
>

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

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 12:19 -0800 2001.03.17, CertIndex.com Webmaster wrote:
>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.

That is not a fact.  I was a writer before I was a programmer, I write a
lot, and I enjoy writing documentation.  I've written a lot of the
documentation for Bender, and will write more.  Further, it is not a fact
that we have no one to answer to; we have our users, and we have bosses.
In other words, your facts not only are not facts, but even as
generalizations they do not apply to Slash.

Note that some of the issues you raise in this forum, such as ambiguity
about defaultdisplaystatus, might not get addressed unless there is a
report filed on SourceForge.  That creates a record that we need to take
action on, so it is not easily forgotten about later.

Thanks,

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

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

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 10:59 -0500 2001.03.17, shane wrote:
>>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?
>
>I'd either keep it that same user, or in your case, 'foo'.

Actually, this is not what user Apache runs as, but what user slashd should
run as.  Apache is assumed to run as nobody.  slashd is the program
actually writing to files, so it is the process we care about for this.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/