ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Martin Pitt <martin.pitt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Oliver Grawert [2014-05-03 13:14 +0200]:
> the customization kit is exactly for the purpose that everyone uses the
> same base image, has reliably the same bugs etc and can only customize
> what we allow.

Ah, thanks for the heads-up. So this is more like the "branding" kind
of customization, not larger changes.

> allowing init system overrides seems gross while allowing to change a
> switch in a handfull of /etc/default files (or any other config
> mechanism that allows this without full write access to the whole init
> system) seems a lot easier to control for us.

Enabling/disabling a service is the presence/absence of a single
symlink. That's a boolean yes/no, while default files often also
contain actual service configuration changes. So if we want to prevent
changing jobs/unit definitions and just allow
setting/removing/disabling symlinks, we'd need to restrict
writeability to e. g. /etc/systemd/system/*.wants/ .

But even with the ability to disable arbitrary services you can
already ruin/change the user experience quite a bit, so we still need
to be careful there what we allow there.

Thanks,

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature