On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 08:56:26PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
Is there any specific convention for user/group names for ports? The
port I'm making if for a pptp client, should the user/group I choose
reflect the name of the port/package or is _pptp sufficient?
Yes, It's good when name
Hi,
Just trying to see what other ports do with @newuser, it seems that
some use /nonexistent and some /var/empty for the user's home
directory. What is the preferred home directory to use for a daemon?
Also, when submitting the port, should a diff of user.list be
included? Otherwise, how does
On 2009/06/07 12:56, patrick keshishian wrote:
Just trying to see what other ports do with @newuser, it seems that
some use /nonexistent and some /var/empty for the user's home
directory. What is the preferred home directory to use for a daemon?
imho: usually /nonexistent unless the port has a
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Stuart Hendersons...@spacehopper.org wrote:
On 2009/06/07 12:56, patrick keshishian wrote:
Just trying to see what other ports do with @newuser, it seems that
some use /nonexistent and some /var/empty for the user's home
directory. What is the preferred home
Hello,
On Wed, 08.02.2006 at 16:51:12 +1100, Ian McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006, at 12:00 PM, Arnaud Bergeron wrote:
On 2/7/06, Nikolay Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Keith Richardson [2006-02-07]:
for the same UID. Are there any reasons *not* to provide the
Hello,
pkg_create(1) says I can force a UID by prefixing the desired UID with '!'.
That implies that, if the UID is *not* prefixed with '!', the install process
will *not* force the UID supplied but, rather, give you some other available
UID. Really going out on a limb, I would think that
* Keith Richardson [2006-02-07]:
for the same UID. Are there any reasons *not* to provide the
next-availble UID if the '!' prefix wasn't specified?
In a network, having different UIDs for the same accounts is just
calling for trouble. You really want a deterministic solution there.
Nikolay
On 2/7/06, Nikolay Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Keith Richardson [2006-02-07]:
for the same UID. Are there any reasons *not* to provide the
next-availble UID if the '!' prefix wasn't specified?
In a network, having different UIDs for the same accounts is just
calling for trouble. You
On 8 Feb 2006, at 12:00 PM, Arnaud Bergeron wrote:
On 2/7/06, Nikolay Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Keith Richardson [2006-02-07]:
for the same UID. Are there any reasons *not* to provide the
next-availble UID if the '!' prefix wasn't specified?
In a network, having different UIDs for
