Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Note that the correct group name was "admin", not "adm" which is a separate > group; there doesn't seem to be an analogous group on Debian systems, so I > haven't attempted to do any templating here. Debian maintainers, please > comment if you think we should be doing something better or if you think > this Ubuntu-specific change shouldn't be included in the package for > whatever reason.
Funnily, "admin" was discussed recently in debian-boot because it is marked as reserved by D-I and a user was complaining about this (see bug reports for user-setup). Colin (Watson) explained why admin is reserved (for Ubuntu purposes). I suggested we (D-I team) keep that name reserved to avoid trivial "forks" for Ubuntu....and having us (samba) use it enforces this, indeed. So, in short, I'm OK to go with "admin". Actually, this "admin" thing is maybe something where Ubuntu and Debian could converge about, no?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
