On 6/13/06, Craig Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is this something that has come up for in a discussion? I don't mean to start a flame war between the BLFS and LFS teams :) It seems like part of a basic setup to have a "users" group with an ID of 100. If the LFS team does not agree, it could always be part of BLFS's "configuring for adding users" instructions.
Probably there could be a note in the BLFS instructions. Unfortunately, groups are a bit of a sticky issue. Some people would not agree that there should be a common users group that all unprivelaged users are a part of. I think it is useful enough that it should be mentioned. On my system, I like to be in a common group with the other users. You can always set your permissions according to your preference. The problem you're having, though, isn't really related to have a "users" group. It's caused because you haven't defined any group. The defaults for shadow from LFS say that any new user will default to group 100 unless the group is specified. There are some switches with useradd that allow the group to be created from useradd, but I can't recall them right now. If the other BLFS editors agree, I'll add a note saying that creating a new user will default to group 100, so you should create that. And maybe I'll say something about putting all your users in a common group. That should be intuitive to anyone with a decent *nix background, though. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
