Rob Browning writes ("Re: Shadow problems"):
> Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You can ofcourse make the new directory setgid (chmod g+s). All files
> > created in that directory will have their gid set to that of the directory..
> &
You (Richard Kaszeta) wrote:
> Quick question (which may show some of my ignorance of the current
> linux shadow stuff):
>
> Will inclusion of the 'shadow' package as default interfere with the
> use of NIS passwd/group entries? Our installation is fairly dependent
> on NIS.
NIS and shadow don't
You (Michael Meskes) wrote:
> > M> 1) Should we change the login package to be shadow aware? Or should
> > shadow
> I talked to Guy (login maintainer) about this problem a while ago and treid
> to persuade him to use ths shadow login as standard (it works without the
> shadow file, too). But he pr
You (Rob Browning) wrote:
> Hmm, I often use newgrp when I'm about to do a set of actions where I
> want to make sure all the new files get a particular group. For
> example, say I'm building a package in my home directory and I want
> all the files created to be group src because I'm likely to mo
The "shadow" feature does not preclude use of NIS passwd and group maps.
Only users that have "*" as their password field will get their passwords
from /etc/shadow or /etc/gshadow (file names may vary).
If our NIS package replaces "passwd", etc., with NIS-master-server-aware
versions, that package
Please work out with Guy Maor (loginutils maintainer) which login to make
standard. I think I will have the set-up script start the system with
shadow enabled, and let the user take it out if they must by removing
/etc/shadow .
Thanks
Bruce
--
Clinton isn't perfect, but I l
>Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org (Debian Development)
>
>Bruce Perens writes:
>>
>> Let's plan on having "shadow" be part of the base for 1.2 . We should thus
>> have the default "login" be aware of it, etc.
>
>But the question remains, which login? The standard one patched, or the
>shadow one,
Bruce Perens writes:
>
> Let's plan on having "shadow" be part of the base for 1.2 . We should thus
> have the default "login" be aware of it, etc.
But the question remains, which login? The standard one patched, or the
shadow one, or both and the user decides?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
David Frey writes:
> M> 1) Should we change the login package to be shadow aware? Or should shadow
> M> come with its own login (that works with and without shadow password
> files)?
> M> Or should we use the shadow login as standard?
>
> I'd prefer if we would be shadow's login, since it is far
Miquel van Smoorenburg writes:
>
> Well the login we're using now is from util-linux, and unless you can get
> the shadow patches into the upstream source (which wouldn't be a bad idea)
> it would be easier to use the login from the shadow package I think.
> You can use the Replaces: header for th
Bruce Perens writes:
Bruce> Let's plan on having "shadow" be part of the base for 1.2 . We
Bruce> should thus have the default "login" be aware of it, etc.
Let's not forget about xdm, please.
--
Dirk Eddelb"uttel http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd
Let's plan on having "shadow" be part of the base for 1.2 . We should thus
have the default "login" be aware of it, etc.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Clinton isn't perfect, but I like him a lot more than Dole.
Please register to vote, and vote for Democrats.
Bruce Perens AB6
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Miquel van Smoorenburg writes:
>Which reminds me: RedHat is going to integrate PAM into their next release.
>Perhaps now is a good time to look if we should consider using that too,
>or if we think that shadow is good enough for now.
Someone's already compiled libpa
You (Michael Meskes) wrote:
> I'm currently trying to finish the work on the shadow package. However,
> there are some decision to make:
>
> 1) Should we change the login package to be shadow aware? Or should shadow
> come with its own login (that works with and without shadow password files)?
> O
I'm currently trying to finish the work on the shadow package. However,
there are some decision to make:
1) Should we change the login package to be shadow aware? Or should shadow
come with its own login (that works with and without shadow password files)?
Or should we use the shadow login as stan
15 matches
Mail list logo
