Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Scott Rotondo wrote:
>> On the other hand, I really do think this could be considered a detail
>> of the implementation. Under my proposal, sulogin will still prompt
>> for a username and password. Even if the spec is silent on the issue,
>> the implementation has to have *some* deterministic behavior when the
>> username is a null string; I'm just suggesting what that behavior
>> should be.
>
> But that behaviour should be documented otherwise we are free to change
> it and that means people can't depend on it (but probably would anyway).
> If they can't depend on it why bother with it implying root rather
> than just giving an error message and asking for the username again.
>
> This might seem like nits but it is stuff like this that customers
> actually notice and get annoyed about when we change it. I know this
> from the praise and flak we got for changing the exact dialog that
> passwd(1) output (and passwd wasn't actually changed but PAM modules).
>
Fair enough. Including it in the spec is certainly fine with me.
Scott
