On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Nicolas François wrote:
> Hello Tomasz,
>
> Can you have a look at these patches.
>
> The second patch (userdel_2.patch) gives a special return value in this case.
userdel_1.patch can be commited (+- indentation) but userdel_2.patch not
because it uses bit operation on exit
Hello Tomasz,
Can you have a look at these patches.
The second patch (userdel_2.patch) gives a special return value in this case.
Kind Regards,
--
Nekral
Index: userdel.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/shadow/src/userdel.c,v
retrieving rev
> The attached patch do not really fix this, but can be used as a basis.
>
> I think we all agree that the user must be warned, don't we?
Sure
>
> The problem is shall we remove the group or not? Do we need a special
> return value?
We shouldn't remove the group because this would induce
incon
Hi!
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 07:33:17AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/295416 is a long bug long, but it can be
> resumed as:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# groupadd bug295416
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# useradd -g bug295416 bug295416
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# useradd -g bug295416 othe
http://bugs.debian.org/295416 is a long bug long, but it can be
resumed as:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# groupadd bug295416
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# useradd -g bug295416 bug295416
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# useradd -g bug295416 other295416
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# userdel bug295416
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# getent group bug
5 matches
Mail list logo