Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>]

(removing crosspost to sm-sorcery)

It doesn't need it's own group... at least that was the last thing I
remmeber about the last time this problem was discussed... I think
there's even a bug for it, or perhaps it was on the ML...
It doesn't set any files to be owned by itself, so what use would a
group be to it?

On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 10:15, Ladislav Hagara wrote:
> Thank you.
> And why does not sshd have its own group sshd ?
> Why group nogroup ?
> For example Mandrake uses group sshd too.
> - lace -
> 
> > This was fixed last night (hmm did I remember to close the bug?). The
> > fix is to  comment out line 41 of libgrimoire and add the line
> > 'nogroup:65534:' to /etc/sorcery/groups.
> >
> > On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 04:56, Ladislav Hagara wrote:
> > > Sorcery team, please, could you  modify /etc/sorcery/accounts and
> > > /etc/sorcery/groups according to
> > > http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2129#c3
> > >
> > > I installed latest iso http://download.sourcemage.org/iso/ :
> > > /etc/sorcery/accounts contains sshd:111:65534
> > > /etc/group contains nogroup with 65534
> > > /etc/sorcery/groups contains sudo:111:
> > >
> > > My suggestion:
> > > /etc/sorcery/accounts could contains sshd:111:111
> > > /etc/sorcery/groups could be modified, I would added group sshd:111:
> > > and modify group sudo:111: to for example sudo:114:
> > >
> > > Why does sshd use nogroup? I think sshd could have its own group sshd.
> > > Or modify create_account function to ignore nogroup in /etc/passwd.
-- 


Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. 
-----------------
PGP public key at 
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3327A9A5
F1


F1

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part