Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Alex Merry wrote: >> It was different. The getpwnam call was introduced in 098 (see my >> other post). Before that it unconditionally tried to become >> "nobody:nogroup". > > Ah, thanks. Well, as Dan said, we were going to update to udev-100 > anyway; I'd think that if we can get that upgrade in soon, it won't be > that big of a problem. > > Matt, I think I remember you were talking about wanting to do the udev > upgrade with Alexander's help, or something. If you still want to do it > that way, go ahead -- if you have questions, you can at least try asking > me. I don't guarantee I'll have a correct answer, but hey, we'll see > how it goes. ;-) > > (I will have to re-read the new udev manpages regarding the rule changes > they made in 098. IIRC from the mailing list, the changes can basically > be done with a sed on all the rules files; the replacement names for the > rule attributes have a 1-1 mapping with the old names. You just have to > replace SYSFS with ATTRS, NAME with KERNEL, etc. Or something close to > that, anyway.)
I'd like to remind everybody that LFS will have to add the nobody user/group to section 6.6 (Creating Essential Files and Symlinks). I'd also like to point out that BLFS uses nobody as uid 99 and nogroup as gid 99. The nogroup group is used for fam, kdebase, stunnel, nfs-utils, and samba. If there is a way to make udev use nogroup, it would help the consistency with BLFS. Looking at the code, the "nobody" group is only used in test/udev-test.pl (lines 1407, 1409, 1418, and 1420). In extras/volume_id/vol_id.c, the group of the nobody uid (not gid) is used. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
