Package: adduser (Filing this, to track the TODOs from the discussion that followed http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/05/msg00887.html)
Am Wed, 26 May 2010 08:40:26 +0100 schrieb Stephen Gran <[email protected]>: > This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said: > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:30:49PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > > > This one time, at band camp, Michael Banck said: > > > > > > Seems worthwhile to change adduser how you suggest to me, is > > > > there a bug filed to this end? > > > > > adduser has had bugs filed in the past asking for uid to be equal > > > to gid by default, and I have so far rejected them as not worth > > > the complexity for the aesthetic pleasure of having numbers > > > match. Is there some problem with username == primary group name? > > > > pam_umask requires both username == primary group name and uid == > > gid before it will assume UPG are in place when using its > > 'usergroups' option, and I am not willing to diverge from upstream > > on this as this would mean admins coming from other systems may get > > an unpleasant surprise when they find that Debian gives a more > > relaxed umask than they were expecting in some corner cases. > > > > So either someone should convince Linux-PAM upstream to change the > > behavior of pam_umask, or adduser should enforce the same rules as > > other implementations, if pam_umask is to be involved here. Beyond > > that, I have no particular opinion on this question. > > That's the first useful argument I've heard for changing adduser's > behavior. Interoperability with other software is a useful goal, and > when I was arguing it wasn't worth the complexity, either pam_umask > didn't exist or I was unaware of it. I'll try to get this change into > squeeze. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
