Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Didi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 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 > > If someone can provide code to determine efficiently > whether a nameless GID is a PAG then we can probably > make everyone happy. If that happens, I'll need to > know if there's a standard or accepted mapping from > GID to PAG group name. Pointers to unencumbered code > would be welcome.
Since you guys are interested in AFS, I'm hoping one of you will respond to the above. I'll wait a few days, after which, if I don't hear anything, I'll just revert to the old behavior. Ideally, someone would write a patch (just outlining it is better if you haven't already sent in FSF copyright paperwork for coreutils) to fake a group name for a nameless group ID that is a PAG. A hint for the ambitious: Davor Ocelic suggested that libnss-afs already does at least some of this... _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
