Archaic wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 08:52:05PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >>Why do something different for those? > > > Just trying to get a feel for the issues at hand. ISTM that to buck > historical use because obscure or highly specialized (liveCD) fs's might > not like them is odd. Also, the live cd doesn't actually matter anyway > because lastlog will not be written to. Therefore the file does not even > have to exist. So again, I'm just trying to find out what value there is > to *not* setting it to 65535. Just trying to paint a picture here, > Bruce. I currently have no preformed opinion other than I would like > lfs/blfs to match uid/gid and 65535 is the historical favorite. IOW, I'm > trying to figure out if BLFS should use 65535, or if LFS should use what > BLFS ends up using.
It is the historic way of doing things, but IMO, the value is depricated. For instance in RH Enterprise Linux we have in /etc/group: nobody:x:99: nfsnobody:x:65534 and in /etc/passwd nobody:x:99:99:Nobody:/:/sbin/nologin nfsnobody:x:65534:65534:Anonymous NFS User:/var/lib/nfs:/sbin/nologin I've looked at the nfs source code and it uses nobody if defined and -2 otherwise. If systems are configured properly, the -2 values is never used. I will also note that on my RHEL system we have $ ll -h /var/log/lastlog -r-------- 1 root root 18M Apr 18 23:17 /var/log/lastlog $ du -h /var/log/lastlog 44K /var/log/lastlog It's certainly a minor thing. The only problem I know of if a system does not have a user or group name defined is that a ls -l produces a number instead of a name. If nfs servers have nobody defined, it doesn't matter what the number is. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
