Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > No one has suggested a location non-root people can put the socket/lock
> > Since RPM's _must_ be installed by root, that doesn't affect them. The
> The issue we have is that we don't assume root installs. Any root
> requirement is going to be RPM-specific.

[waiting on another RPM build cycle to finish]

I understand that issue. The RPMset is just not affected by that issue,
as, for an RPM to be installed, you must be root. No ifs ands or buts
-- an RPM installation assumes root, and can do anything along those
lines it needs to do.

Of course, that means I have to be extra careful -- people installing
RPM's I build are going to be running my %pre, %post, %preun, and
%postun scripts _as_root_. RPM's are quite capable of royally hosing a
system, if the packager hasn't done his homework. But that also means
malicious RPMs are possible (horrors.) -- one header in an RPM, hidden
from view, could render your system totally useless. Yes, it's true.
No, I won't package an RPM 'bomb' -- but it could be done, easily
enough.

Now, you can _build_ an RPM (which will be installed as root) as a
non-root user, and that invokes the 'make install' as part of its
process, but I digress (badly, at that).

But my issue is that libpq or any other client should be smart enough to
not have to assume the location.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11