sean finney writes:
> I was always given the impression that adduser and friends "wanted" to
> be able to handle non-local accounts, but nobody had ever extended it to
> do so? So I think it's a bit shaky to make that assumption.
> But if we specifically limit the scope for users/groups being l
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:03:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> sean finney writes:
>
> > For locking the account, I think it could be problematic if you have
> > some kind of central account management system (i.e. LDAP/AD), and you
> > don't want to lock it globally.
>
> Yeah, but adduser does
sean finney writes:
> For locking the account, I think it could be problematic if you have
> some kind of central account management system (i.e. LDAP/AD), and you
> don't want to lock it globally.
Yeah, but adduser doesn't ever do anything with central account management
systems anyway, so far
* Simon McVittie [110408 22:23]:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 at 21:51:03 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Requiring the user to pass -I to the compiler should be discouraged.
>
> I disagree: independently of multiarch, many libraries do this deliberately
> to allow for parallel-installation, and use pkg
Hi all,
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 02:25:36AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I agree that the accounts should not be deleted, but that the packages
> should still be responsible for certain forms of cleanup:
>
> - removing the user home directory (on purge?)
> - locking the account
> - (optional)
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 10:14:54AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:44:28AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > Thus, I propose to change 9.2.2 "UID and GID classes", the paragraph on
> > uids in the range 100-999, to add the following sentence to the end of
> > the paragraph:
>
6 matches
Mail list logo
