Proposal for dealing with sendmail [ug]id bootstrapping

2002-04-19 Thread Doug Barton
While I do not object to the addition of the new users for sendmail, and I understand the theory of having them own directories for its operation, I think that the current bootstrapping problems are creating too greate a barrier for users who upgrade from source. There are (at least) two

Re: Proposal for dealing with sendmail [ug]id bootstrapping

2002-04-19 Thread Gregory Neil Shapiro
DougB My proposal is simple. Change from using names to numeric [ug]id's DougB in mtree, and elsewhere if needed. The plus is that it solves the DougB bootstrapping problem. The negatives involve problems with systems DougB that don't merge the password and group files, and therefore will DougB

Re: Proposal for dealing with sendmail [ug]id bootstrapping

2002-04-19 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : 2. Users who don't read (or don't understand) UPDATING. This is basically, : everybody. Actually, UPDATING was changed last night to be more explicit about what to do. Let's give that a chance. I don't like the

Re: Proposal for dealing with sendmail [ug]id bootstrapping

2002-04-19 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gregory Neil Shapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : .if !defined(NO_SENDMAIL) : mtree -deU -f ${.CURDIR}/mtree/sendmail.root.dist -p ${DESTDIR}/ : .endif Wow! I hadn't read this before making my suggestion. Honest :-) I like his solution. Warner