On 04/23/2014 12:05 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > 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. >
In some distributions I saw that users group is 100 instead of 1000. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
