On 5/13/2010 3:34 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2010-05-13, Charles Plessy <ple...@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 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 NIS or NIS+? Speculation is one thing, implementing it is another. I'm utilizing OpenLDAP with autofs to mount user home directories on RHEL 5 systems when users login. Everything plays nice, just as you would expect, permission-wise. They have their own UPG, and the default umask is still 0002. Because most of these are developers developing in /u01, it's trivial to setup the collaboration as previously mentioned. I don't have experience with NIS or NIS+, however, so I would be interested in learning any problems with either of these setups. -- . O . O . O . . O O . . . O . . . O . O O O . O . O O . . O O O O . O . . O O O O . O O O
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
