Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Along these lines, yes. I also think that using the cyg_server/ cron_server/sshd_server account should be preferred over SYSTEM on XP and earlier systems, at least if they are domain member machines. Maybe simply like this: The test should run on any OS, but if none of the accounts exists, the fallback for XP and earlier is SYSTEM. IIUC, that's not quite what $csih_FORCE_PRIVILEGED_USER is for. Yes? No?
Correct -- csih_FORCE_PRIVILEGED_USER means FORCE; you're asking for a gentle default behavior.
I've modified the behavior on NT/2k/XP when not $csih_FORCE_PRIVILEGED_USER, so that if a 'known' privileged user exists, then it is used. Otherwise, SYSTEM; no new users will be created.
However, on NT/2k/XP the $csih_FORCE_PRIVILEGED_USER behavior is unchagned: if a privileged user already exists it will be used (as above) -- but if one does NOT exist, one will be created and used. And failure to create it is a script failure.
I tried the above script change on a XP domain member machine and with csih_FORCE_PRIVILEGED_USER set to yes. It works, it's just a bit bumpy: *** Info: This script plans to use 'cyg_server'. *** Info: 'cyg_server' will not be able to log on interactively, but will only *** Info: be used by registered services. The message is incorrect.
Fixed.
*** Query: Do you want to use different name? (yes/no) no mkpasswd (273): [2221] The user name could not be found. I'm not sure why is mkpasswd is called here, but it's called with -l only so it can't find the domain account. Can this test be skipped if the user has been directly taken from /etc/passwd?
Well, I *think* it is now skipped because that code path doesn't get activated now, if the user was found (in /etc/passwd OR in localSAM).
Now, you only hit that line if you just created the user: which only happens if it existed neither in the SAM nor in /etc/passwd. And, since you just created it -- locally -- it obviously exists in the SAM /now/ -- but not yet in /etc/passwd. How do you add an entry to /etc/passwd for a user in the local SAM? mkpasswd -l.
I added some comments at the appropriate places to make this clearer.
Btw., there's a test for the administrators group in /etc/passwd. This test is not necessary. The only reason to have the admins group in /etc/passwd is to print file ownership correctly. It doesn't have any other value.
I don't see this. I see testing /etc/passwd for the (local) Administrator USER, and testing /etc/group for the Administrators GROUP, but not /etc/passwd <-> Administrators GROUP.
More info please? Please try current CVS: http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/csih/cygwin-service-installation-helper.sh?rev=1.10&cvsroot=cygwin-apps or http://tinyurl.com/5ex7bl -- Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
