Re: [gentoo-user] Default group for users
On Tuesday 28 August 2007, Mick wrote: > > ch* and other user/group related commands out of sys-apps/coreutils > > There you go! I learn something new every day. I used to modify > these files by hand and now I find out that there's a batch command > available too. heh, I know the feeling. My day job is delivering red hat courses, and when I tell dudes in the classroom to just do what we've done on *nix for years and hand edit /etc/group (usermod -G and gpasswd -a are just too painful to use...) they all look at me like I just stepped off a flying saucer fresh from Mars alan -- Optimists say the glass is half full, Pessimists say the glass is half empty, Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be? Alan McKinnon alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za +27 82, double three seven, one nine three five -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Default group for users
On Tuesday 28 August 2007, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Monday 27 August 2007, Mick wrote: > > > There's two ways of doing this, either new users all have the same > > > inital primary group, or they get one based on their user name. The > > > second is preferred as homw dirs are then not open by default like > > > they would be if they were all owned by the users groups, and the > > > user sets a umask of 0002 > > > > From what you're saying the current default Gentoo set up is to have > > a separate primary group, based on the user's name. Was this the > > case 3-4 years ago? > > Dunno :-) I haven't been a gentooite for that many years yet > > > > You can actually do it any way you want and that suits your needs, > > > but the current gentoo default is a sane default. CHange it if you > > > want with the usual tools to manipulate > > > /etc/passwd|group|shadow|gshadow > > > > I am aware of these files, but what tools are the "usual tools"? > > ch* and other user/group related commands out of sys-apps/coreutils There you go! I learn something new every day. I used to modify these files by hand and now I find out that there's a batch command available too. Thanks! -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Default group for users
On Monday 27 August 2007, Mick wrote: > > There's two ways of doing this, either new users all have the same > > inital primary group, or they get one based on their user name. The > > second is preferred as homw dirs are then not open by default like > > they would be if they were all owned by the users groups, and the > > user sets a umask of 0002 > > From what you're saying the current default Gentoo set up is to have > a separate primary group, based on the user's name. Was this the > case 3-4 years ago? Dunno :-) I haven't been a gentooite for that many years yet > > You can actually do it any way you want and that suits your needs, > > but the current gentoo default is a sane default. CHange it if you > > want with the usual tools to manipulate > > /etc/passwd|group|shadow|gshadow > > I am aware of these files, but what tools are the "usual tools"? ch* and other user/group related commands out of sys-apps/coreutils -- Optimists say the glass is half full, Pessimists say the glass is half empty, Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be? Alan McKinnon alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za +27 82, double three seven, one nine three five -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Default group for users
On Monday 27 August 2007, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Monday 27 August 2007, Mick wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I have a box which until recently had only one user. When I created > > this user as e.g. user_name1 his home became owned by > > user_name1:users. This cascaded to directories below > > /home/user_name1. No directory called user_name1 was created at the > > time. > > > > More recently, I created a new user, user_name2 and the ownership > > of /home/user_name2 became user_name2:user_name2 (the latter being a > > group for user_name2). Is this how it should be these days? If so > > then I assume that this is because of changes in the skeleton file > > over the years. > > There's two ways of doing this, either new users all have the same > inital primary group, or they get one based on their user name. The > second is preferred as homw dirs are then not open by default like they > would be if they were all owned by the users groups, and the user sets > a umask of 0002 From what you're saying the current default Gentoo set up is to have a separate primary group, based on the user's name. Was this the case 3-4 years ago? > You can actually do it any way you want and that suits your needs, but > the current gentoo default is a sane default. CHange it if you want > with the usual tools to manipulate /etc/passwd|group|shadow|gshadow I am aware of these files, but what tools are the "usual tools"? Thanks for all the answers. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Default group for users
On Monday 27 August 2007, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: > Am Montag, 27. August 2007 schrieb ext Mick: > > I have a box which until recently had only one user. When I created this > > user as e.g. user_name1 his home became owned by user_name1:users. This > > cascaded to directories below /home/user_name1. No directory called > > user_name1 was created at the time. > > Would you mind telling us _how_ you created this user? Just like the handbook told me to, but that was something like 4 years ago. Something I need to say here is that a couple of years after I created the user, I restored the system from tar files using a Knoppix CD. Not sure if this messed things up (e.g. at some point I discovered that my /home directory was set as drwxr_xr_t). > > More recently, I created a new user, user_name2 and the ownership > > of /home/user_name2 became user_name2:user_name2 (the latter being a > > group for user_name2). > > see above. # useradd -m -G users,wheel,audio,plugdev -s /bin/bash -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Default group for users
On Monday 27 August 2007, Mick wrote: > Hi All, > > I have a box which until recently had only one user. When I created > this user as e.g. user_name1 his home became owned by > user_name1:users. This cascaded to directories below > /home/user_name1. No directory called user_name1 was created at the > time. > > More recently, I created a new user, user_name2 and the ownership > of /home/user_name2 became user_name2:user_name2 (the latter being a > group for user_name2). Is this how it should be these days? If so > then I assume that this is because of changes in the skeleton file > over the years. There's two ways of doing this, either new users all have the same inital primary group, or they get one based on their user name. The second is preferred as homw dirs are then not open by default like they would be if they were all owned by the users groups, and the user sets a umask of 0002 You can actually do it any way you want and that suits your needs, but the current gentoo default is a sane default. CHange it if you want with the usual tools to manipulate /etc/passwd|group|shadow|gshadow > Meanwhile /home looks like this: > > drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 216 Dec 24 2006 home Yes, that is correct. Only root can create users so only root has the ability to write to /home to create the home dirs. Everyone else can still cd and ls /home, as they need that to navigate to lower directories alan -- Optimists say the glass is half full, Pessimists say the glass is half empty, Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be? Alan McKinnon alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za +27 82, double three seven, one nine three five -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] Default group for users
Hi All, I have a box which until recently had only one user. When I created this user as e.g. user_name1 his home became owned by user_name1:users. This cascaded to directories below /home/user_name1. No directory called user_name1 was created at the time. More recently, I created a new user, user_name2 and the ownership of /home/user_name2 became user_name2:user_name2 (the latter being a group for user_name2). Is this how it should be these days? If so then I assume that this is because of changes in the skeleton file over the years. Meanwhile /home looks like this: drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 216 Dec 24 2006 home Is this also what your /home looks like? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
