#2144: shadow-4.1.0 --------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Owner: [email protected] Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.0 Component: Book | Version: SVN Severity: normal | Resolution: Keywords: | --------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Replying to [comment:9 Bryan Kadzban]: > But what I'd like to know now is, why force everyone to have a single common group, and then avoid using it? Maybe this is just an interim measure though; that could be. See http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-shadow- devel/2008-February/006334.html - apparently this 'create same group as username' is a complete mess across distributions and upstream. I think the quickest fix for this issue is: {{{ sed -i -e 's/nflg = 0/nflg = 1/' src/useradd.c }}} The fact that useradd complains about an invalid default group, even if '-g' is specified on the command line is an annoyance but is it worth fixing? If so, I'd think that moving the call to 'get_defaults()' to after 'process_flags()' then add a check in 'get_defaults()' to see if '-g' was specified. If it was, don't warn about the default group, as it isn't going to be used anyway. Haven't got time to look into this any further at the moment so I don't know whether 'get_defaults()' depends on 'get_defaults()' having been read. -- Ticket URL: <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2144#comment:10> LFS Trac <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/> Linux From Scratch: Your Distro, Your Rules. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
