docs/99912: Wrong documentation of /etc/ftpchroot
remko at FreeBSD.org
Tue Oct 17 22:31:15 UTC 2006
Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 12:02:00AM +0200, Remko Lodder wrote:
>> Daniel Gerzo wrote:
>>> Hello Remko,
>>> Friday, October 13, 2006, 11:30:21 AM, you wrote:
>>>> Synopsis: Wrong documentation of /etc/ftpchroot
>>>> State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
>>>> State-Changed-By: remko
>>>> State-Changed-When: Fri Oct 13 09:29:48 UTC 2006
>>>> I believe this was fixed with the latest import of lukemftpd
>>>> please report to me when I thought that incorrectly (checked
>>>> the manual pages so it -should- be fixed).
>>> It wasn't actually :/
>>> The ftpd's and lukemftpd's manual pages still conflict pretty badly.
>> Hey Daniel,
>> Care to explain what still conflicts then? I checked the ftpchroot
>> information and that is well explained now, which was the reason
>> of the PR...
> ftpchroot(5) claims to be the manpage for ftpd(8). It isn't. It's a
> manpage that comes with lukemftpd(8). Coincidentally, it seems somewhat
> correct (it looks like the lukemftpd use of ftpusers changed to match
> ours?). However, it also states:
> If the ftpusers file does not exist, all users are denied access.
> which is not true of ftpd(8).
> I have not verified that the ftpchroot syntax is the same for both
> ftpd(8) and lukemftpd(8).
OK that explains a lot.. so we are in a messed up situation since
this will keep conflicting when it refers to things that are also
used by ftpd(8). No matter how hard David works on it :( (which I
thank him for). What should we do with this? Move it to the ports
tree (which resolves this issue since it cannot conflict at all)
or try to ask David to ask the original developers to these conflicts?
(Both will be.. interesting to do :-))
Cheers and thanks for the feedback!
Remko Lodder ** remko at elvandar.org
FreeBSD ** remko at FreeBSD.org
/* Quis custodiet ipsos custodes */
More information about the freebsd-doc