> If by "unknown" you mean nameless, that's not what the patch does. > Such a patch would not even have been considered.
I agree that hiding this information in some cases might not be optimal, but the main problem is that through this the 'groups' command becomes utterly useless and confused quite a lot of users. $ groups users id: cannot find name for group ID 1091323188 1091323188 further $ id -Gn users id: cannot find name for group ID 1091323188 1091323188 Because of this I get many scripts that scan /etc/group and /etc/passwd in a loop and when I ask why they don't use 'grous' or 'id' I get "Ahh this has been broken for a long time" or "Somehow my computer is broken". Is there a way of maybe instead of giving an error message to give back a pag name. My intent was not to hide the number it was to hide the error because people think their systems are broken even if there are not. I can see the conflict here between users and sysadmins. Does someone know if there is a way to find out if the group is a pag group or not. Then I could write a version that still shows the group number but suppresses the error. Would that be OK? Cheers Didi --- www.cern.ch/ribalba / www.ribalba.de Email / Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone (Work) : +41 22 7679376 Skype : ribalba Address : CERN / IT-FIO-FS / GENEVE 23/ SCHWEIZ _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
