Em 23-04-2014 02:39, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: > Ken Moffat wrote:
>> I've had a users group in my own builds for years, probably derived >> from fedora, and it has always been 1000. Shadow is now maintained >> by debian, no ? So the fact that it too uses 1000 implies many >> people will already use 1000 for the group owning their files. >> >> OK, you can set up a completely new set of groups in the LFS >> system, but if you share /home between the original host system and >> LFS (e.g. until you feel confident that LFS is the right way for >> you) then this justs adds unnecessary change. > > I put in 999 because it keeps useradd from giving a warning message the > first time useradd is run on a base LFS system. It also makes the first > useradd create UIDs and GIDs the same number. Perhaps we should ignore > that issue. But is it OK (esthetically, not technically) to have a > users group of 1000 and the first user with a UID of 1000 and a GID of 1001? > > Note that the only reason we do any of this is that the acl tests insist > on a group with the name users. One alternative may be to hack the test > code to use some other group that already exists. Perhaps: > > sed -i 's/:users/:dialout/' test/misc.test > > I haven't tried it, but then a 'users' group wouldn't be needed and we > could revert that change in shadow. > > My personal approach is usually to just copy passwd/group/shadow from > the old system to the new, but a new user will probably want to just use > useradd. In most distributions, first user and group are 1000:1000 with same name. I prefer the book as is. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
