On 2005-09-28 18:16:21 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> All advices I've gathered up to now around me tend to mention that
> having same names for groups with different GIDs in different
> databases is a completely strange idea
Here it was the *same* GID. This is a good idea
* to avoid clashes with the NIS database by making some kind of
copy of the NIS database locally,
* to avoid some packages from stealing GIDs normally reserved for
the NIS database (the slocate package created a group with GID
1001).
But I think that having different GIDs may be useful in some cases,
where the sysadmins don't support Debian: Debian packages may want
to create groups whose name already exist in the NIS database.
Unfortunately there are no namespaces to avoid group name clashes.
> which certainly low level tools shouldn't support.
Then the documentation should be fixed.
> The best motivated advice I had up to now as "hey, if you really want
> to do this, why not just use vi on /etc/group|/etc/gshadow?"
What if some script wants to create a group locally?
--
Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
