Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > 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". > > Are you saying that you're ok with it for Samba in Debian, or in Ubuntu? > > I really don't think it's appropriate to use in Debian. The admin group is > historically not created by Debian's installer or base-files, so if it > exists at all on older Debian systems it's because of action taken by the > local administrator. The resulting group may have completely different
Sorry, I may have misunderstood you.....and badly explain my point. What I meant is that it is OK to *mention* this group in either comments or commented settings. Of course, as you point, Debian is not ready not have us use this group by default.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
