Rob Browning writes (Re: Shadow problems):
Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can ofcourse make the new directory setgid (chmod g+s). All files
created in that directory will have their gid set to that of the directory..
But I can see that using newgrp might be more
You (Rob Browning) wrote:
Hmm, I often use newgrp when I'm about to do a set of actions where I
want to make sure all the new files get a particular group. For
example, say I'm building a package in my home directory and I want
all the files created to be group src because I'm likely to move
You (Michael Meskes) wrote:
M 1) Should we change the login package to be shadow aware? Or should
shadow
I talked to Guy (login maintainer) about this problem a while ago and treid
to persuade him to use ths shadow login as standard (it works without the
shadow file, too). But he prefers
You (Richard Kaszeta) wrote:
Quick question (which may show some of my ignorance of the current
linux shadow stuff):
Will inclusion of the 'shadow' package as default interfere with the
use of NIS passwd/group entries? Our installation is fairly dependent
on NIS.
NIS and shadow don't
Bruce Perens writes:
Bruce Let's plan on having shadow be part of the base for 1.2 . We
Bruce should thus have the default login be aware of it, etc.
Let's not forget about xdm, please.
--
Dirk Eddelbuttel http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd
Miquel van Smoorenburg writes:
Well the login we're using now is from util-linux, and unless you can get
the shadow patches into the upstream source (which wouldn't be a bad idea)
it would be easier to use the login from the shadow package I think.
You can use the Replaces: header for that.
David Frey writes:
M 1) Should we change the login package to be shadow aware? Or should shadow
M come with its own login (that works with and without shadow password
files)?
M Or should we use the shadow login as standard?
I'd prefer if we would be shadow's login, since it is far more
Bruce Perens writes:
Let's plan on having shadow be part of the base for 1.2 . We should thus
have the default login be aware of it, etc.
But the question remains, which login? The standard one patched, or the
shadow one, or both and the user decides?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org (Debian Development)
Bruce Perens writes:
Let's plan on having shadow be part of the base for 1.2 . We should thus
have the default login be aware of it, etc.
But the question remains, which login? The standard one patched, or the
shadow one, or both and the
Please work out with Guy Maor (loginutils maintainer) which login to make
standard. I think I will have the set-up script start the system with
shadow enabled, and let the user take it out if they must by removing
/etc/shadow .
Thanks
Bruce
--
Clinton isn't perfect, but I
The shadow feature does not preclude use of NIS passwd and group maps.
Only users that have * as their password field will get their passwords
from /etc/shadow or /etc/gshadow (file names may vary).
If our NIS package replaces passwd, etc., with NIS-master-server-aware
versions, that package
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Miquel van Smoorenburg writes:
Which reminds me: RedHat is going to integrate PAM into their next release.
Perhaps now is a good time to look if we should consider using that too,
or if we think that shadow is good enough for now.
Someone's already compiled libpam
12 matches
Mail list logo
