Comment by wavemode
19 hours ago
I don't understand that logic. If it's fine for sudo-rs to have different behavior from sudo, why can't it also just have a different executable name? So that people who are expecting traditional sudo will get "executable not found" instead of having subtle silent problems.
according to https://itsfoss.com/news/ubuntu-25-10-sudo-rs/:
"Canonical's Jon Seager mentions that the sudo-rs developers are collaborating with Todd Miller, the original maintainer of sudo, and to think of sudo-rs as a "handshake across generations of secure systems".
He also added that sudo-rs is not expected to bring over all the features of sudo, as the devs are taking a "less is more" approach, excluding features that are too niche or outdated."
So sudo.rs drops some features because "less is more", but it's still called "sudo" because by working together with the original maintainer they capture the spirit of the original, a "sudo 2.0" so to speak.
Even if this change had been in the C version of sudo, I would expect deprecation warnings before the change, followed by error messages after the change, rather than silent failure. That's just good maintainership.
> So sudo.rs drops some features because "less is more", but it's still called "sudo" because by working together with the original maintainer they capture the spirit of the original, a "sudo 2.0" so to speak.
Except when the change of features are seemingly arbitrary. As the article points out when it comes to regexes, the following is not allowed:
but the following would be
So, as the author notes:
> The Rust sudo has apparently opted to keep the single most dangerous wildcard while disallowing all of the wildcards that allow one to be narrow and specific about what you're allowing […]
If the goal is a safer system: WTF?