On 11/11/99 Brad wrote:
As a side note, be careful when changing users' shells to /bin/false--some
packages depend on the shell being /bin/sh and you'll get minor breakage
if you change them.
yes I know which i why I wish that they were set properly in the
first place (I know for sure that qm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, David Rocher wrote:
> it's because other packages aren't allowed to change /etc/passwd
> (provide by base-passwd) cf Debian Policy Manual. but you are free
> to remove then!
The Debian Policy Manual says that packages may add users to the s
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 03:40:06AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> you mean that packages are not permitted to add users to my system as
> part of their install process?
yep, read DPM.
> does base-passwd when upgraded compare the existing passwd file with
> the one it has and add missing users?
On 11/11/99 David Rocher wrote:
it's because other packages aren't allowed to change /etc/passwd
(provide by base-passwd) cf Debian Policy Manual. but you are free
to remove then!
you mean that packages are not permitted to add users to my system as
part of their install process? that's sure
On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 11:39:53PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> also note that i did not install qmail on this system, so why are
> qmail users present? there are several users installed here that
> have to do with packages i do not have installed...
it's because other packages aren't allowed t
I was looking through the /etc/passwd that was installed on my new
potato install (direct not from slink) and I noticed alot of users
that have their shell set to /bin/sh that should probably be set to
/bin/false.
for example i installed qmail on my old redhat system and all the
qmail users w
6 matches
Mail list logo