Didi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If by "unknown" you mean nameless, that's not what the patch does. >> Such a patch would not even have been considered. > > I agree that hiding this information in some cases might not be > optimal, but the main problem is that through this the 'groups' > command becomes utterly useless and confused quite a lot of users. > $ groups > users id: cannot find name for group ID 1091323188 > 1091323188 > > further > > $ id -Gn > users id: cannot find name for group ID 1091323188 > 1091323188
If someone can provide code to determine efficiently whether a nameless GID is a PAG then we can probably make everyone happy. If that happens, I'll need to know if there's a standard or accepted mapping from GID to PAG group name. Pointers to unencumbered code would be welcome. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils