On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 17:38:23 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
>
> > Maybe "god" ;-)
>
> What about the "adm" group ? Is it the same as the "admin" ?
>
What about reading the thread and relevant documentation instead of
repeating turned down ideas for the bikeshed
Maybe "god" ;-)
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 20/10/2010 11:18, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>>
>> So I would suggest to use a name that is more likely to be unique.
>>
>
> unique wrt. what? "admin" seems "unique" since not used in Debian yet.
>
>> Happy hacking,
>
> --
On 20/10/2010 11:18, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> So I would suggest to use a name that is more likely to be unique.
>
unique wrt. what? "admin" seems "unique" since not used in Debian yet.
> Happy hacking,
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
[Michael Biebl]
> One suggestion is to use group "admin". Ubuntu has been using that
> group for exactly the purpose what we are going for and I think it
> is a pretty adequate name.
The Ubuntu use of the group 'admin' have caused some problems here at
the university where I work on integrating Ub
[reply-to set to d-d only]
On 20/10/2010 07:12, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org):
>
>>> On the other hand, is it really necessary a new group? Can't adm or
>>> operator
>>> be overloaded with this new functionality? (think Ockham's razor).
>>
>> No. Both o
Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org):
> > On the other hand, is it really necessary a new group? Can't adm or
> > operator
> > be overloaded with this new functionality? (think Ockham's razor).
>
> No. Both of those groups also have other meanings.
How about the "root" group?
sign
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:48:58AM +0200, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
[...]
> On the other hand, is it really necessary a new group? Can't adm
> or operator be overloaded with this new functionality? (think
> Ockham's razor).
Maybe similarly overloaded, but I've used the built-in "staff" group
for th
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:48:58AM +0200, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010 08:15:56 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> [...]
> > Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 02:12 +0200, Jesús M. Navarro a écrit :
> > > What about the old-fashioned "wheel" group[1]?
> > This would be an even worse disas
Am Dienstag, den 19.10.2010, 08:15 +0200 schrieb Josselin Mouette:
> Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 00:38 +0200, Michael Biebl a écrit :
-Snipp-
> > So, I'm wondering if we shouldn't pick a more neutral name without a
> > previous
> > history in Debian.
> > One suggestion is to use group "admin". Ubu
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:38:41 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Bdale went ahead and added the following to /etc/sudoers:
>
> # Allow members of group sudo to not need a password
> # (Note that later entries override this, so you might need to move
> # it further down)
> %sudo ALL=(ALL) ALL
Ah yes -
Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 09:58 +0100, Philip Hands a écrit :
> > For PolicyKit, I can now simply ship a file, say
> > /etc/polkit-1/localauthority.conf.d/51-debian-sudo.conf which contains:
> >
> > [Configuration]
> > AdminIdentities=unix-group:sudo
>
> I would object to 'sudo' being a group of
Hi, Josselin:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 08:15:56 Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
> Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 02:12 +0200, Jesús M. Navarro a écrit :
> > What about the old-fashioned "wheel" group[1]?
>
> This would be an even worse disaster than “admin”, for similar reasons.
> Users of the “wheel
hi,
2010/10/19 Michael Biebl :
> Hi,
> Bdale went ahead and added the following to /etc/sudoers:
>
> # Allow members of group sudo to not need a password
> # (Note that later entries override this, so you might need to move
> # it further down)
> %sudo ALL=(ALL) ALL
First of all: YES! Thanks! I
On 19.10.2010 08:15, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 00:38 +0200, Michael Biebl a écrit :
>> 1/ The sudo group in previous Debian releases had a different meaning:
>> Members
>> of groups sudo could run sudo without needing a password.
>
> Did it exist in previous releases?
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 00:38 +0200, Michael Biebl a écrit :
> > 1/ The sudo group in previous Debian releases had a different
> > meaning: Members of groups sudo could run sudo without needing a
> > password.
>
> Did it exist in previous releases? I don’t recall se
Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 00:38 +0200, Michael Biebl a écrit :
> 1/ The sudo group in previous Debian releases had a different meaning: Members
> of groups sudo could run sudo without needing a password.
Did it exist in previous releases? I don’t recall seeing it in sudoers.
> 2/ Using the name
Hi, Michael:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 00:38:41 Michael Biebl wrote:
> Hi,
[...]
> The idea is, to have a distinct group. Members of that group have
> administrative privileges using sudo and PolicKit.
[...]
> While I think the idea of using a distinct group for users with
> administrative pr
Hi,
as some of you might know, the debian installer allows to install a system with
a disabled root account, i.e. there is no root password set for root.
In lenny, iirc, this was done via d-i pre-seeding, in squeeze it is as simple as
leaving the root password prompt empty.
The lenny installer th
18 matches
Mail list logo
