From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Kost Subject: Re: 'sudoers' vs. 'hosts-file' Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:17:28 +0300 Message-ID: <87h9q9f9nr.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87h9qaihi1.fsf@gmail.com> <1b1c0f64e7aed4c27e377c18a32e9974@openmailbox.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45371) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4TKi-0007K5-Bs for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:17:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4TKh-0001IE-Cd for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:17:44 -0400 List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Daniel Pimentel Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, guix-devel-bounces+d4n1=openmailbox.org@gnu.org Daniel Pimentel (2015-06-15 01:52 +0300) wrote: > On 2015-06-14 09:47, Alex Kost wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Since there is no real difference between 'sudoers' and 'hosts-file' >> fields (of operating-system declaration), what about renaming one of >> them? So it could be either: >> >> 'sudoers-file' and 'hosts-file' >> >> or >> >> 'sudoers' and 'hosts' >> >> (I prefer the latter variant) > > Host file is trust relationship (for example host, IP). The sudoers is > user/group that can use binary command as root (for example ifconfig, dd > and other). I didn't meant that those files are the same, I wanted to say that 'sudoers' and 'hosts-file' fields of 'operating-system' record should be named in the same manner as they are both file-like objects. Sorry for the confusion. -- Alex