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
14 matches
Mail list logo
