Thomas Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:09:27 +
> "Thordur I. Bjornsson" wrote:
>> viq wrote on Fri 26.Jun'09 at 14:45:04 +0200
>>
>>> Since the user created during installation is somewhat marketed as "root
>>> replacement", shouldn't he be added to staff login class ?
>> Yes, I'd actua
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:09:27 +
"Thordur I. Bjornsson" wrote:
> viq wrote on Fri 26.Jun'09 at 14:45:04 +0200
>
> > Since the user created during installation is somewhat marketed as "root
> > replacement", shouldn't he be added to staff login class ?
>
> Yes, I'd actually love that. Then I c
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 03:12:52PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Thordur I. Bjornsson wrote:
>
> > viq wrote on Fri 26.Jun'09 at 14:45:04 +0200
> >
> > > Since the user created during installation is somewhat marketed as "root
> > > replacement", shouldn't he be added to
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Thordur I. Bjornsson wrote:
> viq wrote on Fri 26.Jun'09 at 14:45:04 +0200
>
> > Since the user created during installation is somewhat marketed as "root
> > replacement", shouldn't he be added to staff login class ?
>
> Yes, I'd actually love that. Then I could use it.
>
viq wrote on Fri 26.Jun'09 at 14:45:04 +0200
> Since the user created during installation is somewhat marketed as "root
> replacement", shouldn't he be added to staff login class ?
Yes, I'd actually love that. Then I could use it.
krw ?