user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
usertags #329701 close-20060531
thanks
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:43:04AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
adduser maintainership would like to see this discussed on
debian-devel. Please state your case there, and I'll decide what to do
afterwards.
Since the original submitter
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:46:55AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 08:40:31AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 08:08:50AM +0100, Teddy Hogeborn wrote:
One additional possibility is for adduser to support an interface to
add users/groups in this new range,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:43:04AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:46:55AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
adduser maintainership would like to see this discussed on
debian-devel. Please state your case there, and I'll decide what to do
afterwards.
I personally don't care too
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 08:40:31AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 08:08:50AM +0100, Teddy Hogeborn wrote:
One additional possibility is for adduser to support an interface to
add users/groups in this new range, which would involve a new
configuration option and at least
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which change is suggested to adduser?
The change of LAST_SYSTEM_UID in /etc/adduser.conf from 999 to 499.
/etc/adduser.conf is a conffile. The range 100-999 is laid down in
policy 9.2.2, so changing the default in adduser is out of the
question.
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 12:57:28PM +0100, Teddy Hogeborn wrote:
And it's not like this would be changed on a running system, right?
It would just be the default value in /var/yp/Makefile for new package
installations for new NIS master servers.
That is not the case. /var/yp/Makefile is a
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And it's not like this would be changed on a running system,
right?
That is not the case. /var/yp/Makefile is a conffile and so will be
updated if it hasn't been modified.
Oh, I see. Sorry. (Hmm, the installation scripts would have to check
for
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 04:54:17PM +0100, Teddy Hogeborn wrote:
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You might find that coming up with a concrete proposal for policy
might help there.
I have the feeling that all that would happen is that maybe someone
would ask the maintainers for the
reassign 329701 adduser
thanks
Maintainers of adduser, please review the log of bug #329701 and
comment. Thank you.
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It might be helpful to have everything ready to be changed in one
fell swoop in order to avoid skew between policy and reality and to
What I want is for any change in the default handling of UID and GID
ranges in NIS to be made in other parts of Debian too.
As long as you do not expect that NIS-served system users and groups
will work too... This is a recipe for a disaster on udev systems,
because they will not be
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:28:58AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
What I want is for any change in the default handling of UID and GID
ranges in NIS to be made in other parts of Debian too.
As long as you do not expect that NIS-served system users and groups
will work too... This is a
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:28:09AM +0100, Teddy Hogeborn wrote:
Maintainers of adduser, please review the log of bug #329701 and
comment. Thank you.
Not having a clue about NIS and never having had any sizeable amount
of local users, I'd like to have an executive summary for this bug
report.
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not having a clue about NIS and never having had any sizeable amount
of local users, I'd like to have an executive summary for this bug
report.
Which change is suggested to adduser?
The change of LAST_SYSTEM_UID in /etc/adduser.conf from 999 to 499.
If
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 08:08:50AM +0100, Teddy Hogeborn wrote:
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not having a clue about NIS and never having had any sizeable amount
of local users, I'd like to have an executive summary for this bug
report.
Which change is suggested to adduser?
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 05:32:14AM +0100, Teddy Hogeborn wrote:
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This looks like a question for policy rather than the NIS package
since coordination with things like adduser seems at least desirable
so I'm reassigning the bug there.
Actually, no. For
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I submit that this is not a problem in practice since I'd bet no one
using NIS has created more than 400 local groups that must not be
exported.
And it's not like this would be changed on a running system, right?
It would just be the default value in
package debian-policy
reassign 329701 nis
thanks
(No reply from anybody on -policy for a few months now, so I follow up
myself.)
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This looks like a question for policy rather than the NIS package
since coordination with things like adduser seems at least
Package: nis
Version: 3.13-2
Severity: wishlist
(I tried to raise this question for general discussion some time ago
but no one replied. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1998/10/msg00198.html.
Therefore I now submit a more specific proposal as a wishlist bug in
the hope of some
package nis
reassign 329701 debian-policy
thanks
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:25:38PM +0200, Teddy Hogeborn wrote:
(I tried to raise this question for general discussion some time ago
but no one replied. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1998/10/msg00198.html.
Therefore I now submit a
19 matches
Mail list logo
