Bug 102697

Summary:	Misleading message in 'su' info document
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux Beta	Reporter:	Bruce A. Locke <blocke>
Component:	coreutils	Assignee:	Tim Waugh <twaugh>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	beta1
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2003-09-28 06:41:28 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	100644, 158740

Description Bruce A. Locke 2003-08-19 23:00:59 UTC

[The following was originally sent to rhl-devel-list and is being posted on
bugzilla by request.]

I'm sure by now most of you have read the "Why GNU 'su' does not support
the 'wheel' group" rant from RMS written years ago.  If you have not
seen it yet do a quick 'info su' and scroll down to the bottom.

What surprises me is this has not been pulled from the 'su' info page
years(?) after pam_wheel showed up in pam.  The statement that GNU 'su'
does not support the 'wheel' group may be technically true in the form
shipped by the GNU but it is misleading when used in Red Hat.  If I were
looking for wheel support and decided to check the su info page (as
suggested by the su man page) I would have read this statement and may
never have figured out the functionality was actually being provided!

In my opinion such historical baggage is harmful and should be pulled
from at least Red Hat's copy of the 'su' info page.

Comment 1 Michael K. Johnson 2003-08-20 13:57:56 UTC

When I first "PAMified" su, I removed the rant and replaced it with
a description of how the modified su worked.  This patch must have
been dropped at some point, and it definitely needs to be recovered.
The rant is definitely a documentation bug that needs to be fixed.

Comment 2 Tim Waugh 2003-08-20 14:25:19 UTC

Please try 5.0-14.

Comment 3 Bruce A. Locke 2003-09-28 06:41:28 UTC

Bug is fixed.