Re: flexfax: Fax != uucp

[Nico Garcia <raoul@cirl.meei.harvard.edu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Jonathan Chen wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> 
> > Has anyone looked at the implications (or difficulty) of just changing
> > the name 'fax' as used internally by HylaFax to 'uucp' so this
> > wouldn't be an issue?  If you don't use uucp, it might be confusing
> > to see the name as the owner of files and processes, but if you
> > do, one or the other ends up being wrong any way you look at it.
> 
> This is such a good idea! It will definitely solve the confusion
> involved with installation, and the stubborness of some O/S's to allow
> entries with the same uids.
> 
> A quick squizz thru' the source code reveals that it shouldn't really
> be a problem (I'll try this in practise for a week on our system); in
> fact "config.h" has the line:
> 
> 	#define  FAX_USER        "uucp"  /* account name of the ``fax user'' */
> 
> What do the others think?

This needs to operate on systems where uucp does and does not already
exist. UUCP requires its own home directory: if the fax servers rely
on the fax home directory to be distinct, this could cause serious
grief.

I'd have to take a look at the chroot behavior of hfaxd and faxq to
see if it could tolerate using the same home directory as UUCP. Has
anyone double checked this?

			Nico Garcia
			Engineer, CIRL 
			Mass. Eye and Ear Infirmary
			raoul@cirl.meei.harvard.edu

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNHSuOz/+ItycgIJRAQEuUgP6Au5uiZBCrbrBey11uDqLtPond9ts71dK
3pEvSgvd/Nb0VjkTmdg3Nx2h894V5cWwE1nOD8oNzn3kiNTDXIVl3QMAFl2X+e6y
pZ7z6uUU7okJFhEiI4BDl+tAWasHbDCRnwBYOQlBMPloeeoc6Rgk16U+oHUFZ5vu
PJs1lGNsBBQ=
=x3iN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----