On 13/05/2010 19:45, Aaron Toponce wrote: On 5/13/2010 3:48 AM, Santiago Vila wrote: Will be done in base-files 5.4. I just saw the change committed. Thank you very much! This is good news. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=581434#25 I'm happy with this move. However, there is still an interaction with ssh to deal with: vdanjean@eyak:~$ chmod -Rv g+w .ssh/authorized_keys
Aaron Toponce <aaron.toponce@gmail.com> writes: On 5/13/2010 3:34 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: Doesn't that lead to "great fun" if you activate NIS or similar means to sync unix users and groups on such systems, if they aren't set up to use UPG too? So that would need a big fat warning in the release notes and somehow I fear bad PR. :P Can you provide a documented use case for
On 5/13/2010 3:34 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: On 2010-05-13, Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> wrote: If no stronger objections against a change from 022 to 002 is raised, would you agree changing base-files so that /etc/profile uses 002 on new systems? Doesn't that lead to "great fun" if you activate NIS or similar means to sync unix users and groups on such systems, if they aren't
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org> wrote: My first reaction to this is: "does it hurt hard when you shoot yourself in the foot?" We'll I didn't noticed anything that bad .. :-) Indeed, creating users with the same username than a system group *and* making their primary group this system group *and* doing that without adduser (if you try to create
