RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> writes: > On Sun, 23 May 2010 03:39:53 +0400 > Anonymous <swel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> writes: >> >> > On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:42:53 -0400 >> > jhell <jh...@dataix.net> wrote: >> >> This is more of a best practices case than what the implications of >> >> leaving users in the master.passwd are. >> > >> > Why is it best practice? Why add extra complexity to solve a problem >> > that doesn't actually exist? >> >> Such unused entries in passwd add clutter. It in turn makes managing >> users more complex. You have to remember which users are created by >> you and which ones are created by ports. > > You don't have to remember, just look at the UID/GID values, ordinary > users start at 1001, ports create UIDs < 1000.
You're presuming non-ordinary users are created only by ports framework. That's not always the case. I may want for example a separate user for telnetd to broadcast ascii movies or youterm sessions. ;) Besides, some ports do not create users by default but may use them if available, e.g. dns/dnsmasq & dnsmasq user. This case is more like a bug, though. > > The base system alone creates 18 such users, if you have problems with > this kind of thing a few stale uids are the least of your problems. > >> So, if you change home dir >> of some user there may be undesireble consequences. And only then >> security becomes a concern because port app may be run with >> privilegies that are higher than intended. > > This appears to refer to an admin confusing a normal user with a > system user that's still in use by a port, so I don't see the > relevance. No. It's about conflict: system user created by admin and system user created by port happen to have same username. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
