>> I'm not sure what the LSB process is, but this past January I posted a >> there any formal acceptance criteria that I need to meet before I >> begin SGML/SQL coding what I posted? >The process is roughly that you just go ahead and check it in >(especially if the text has already gone through the lsb-spec mailing >list), and we worry about formalities later in the process. >A few quick reactions (again, this is to >http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/lsb-spec-0001/msg00056.html >): >* What's the purpose of standardizing /etc/passwd and /etc/group? Is > the intent to provide a way for creating/modifying accounts? Surely > we want something which is more general (e.g. shadow, > /etc/nsswitch.conf, LDAP, NIS, &c)? We have useradd, groupadd, > &c.... Presumably I just misunderstand the intent here. I was over documenting on the initial draft... Only the APIs should be documented, and not the actual internal formats of the /etc files. Interestingly, I have never been on a system where I used the group "password" field. >* The text 'The "group" user database should only be read from > the following APIs' should also allow PAM (PAM might be implemented > by calling those API's, but we need to say that applications can > asume that PAM is doing an OK thing). Likewise for passwords. Noted. >* What do SSM, URM, PRM, and RPM stand for? Other standards, it > sounds like, but is there a more complete cite anywhere? I was just being ganular on the BSD references (ie., System Manager's Manual, User's Reference Manual, Programmer's Reference Manual). I didn't know if these will be eventually sorted by group according to their end-user versus sys admin usages. >* Why do you omit "newgrp" from the LSB? There is a comment there > about chgrp but I don't see what newgrp and chgrp have to do with > each other. You are correct. I don't know why I have newgrp marked or commented that way... :-) >* Why standardize rpc.rusersd, rusers, and rwho? Just being complete on who was consuming uid/gid. You are correct that this should not be in the specification. >In general this looks about right, though. The "Users & Groups" section will be trimmed down alot once the "Commands & Utilities" section is SQL/SGML coded. The "Users & Groups" section does not need to relist everything like I did... Thanks, George Kraft IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512-838-2688; t/l 678-2688 IBM Linux Technology Center, Linux Standards
