--- "John Morrison (Cygwin)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > Although the message is from base-files the reason > is due to installation.
OK... > In my experience this only > occurs when installing for a domain user although > others have reported other reasons for it. 'Domain'? What kind of 'domain' are you talking about here? And why should a user have to rebuild the entire passwd and group files just because they are a domain user? This sounds wrong: if it is right, more explanation is necessary. > For me, the message occurs because the base-passwd > (which I also maintain) doesn't and (for a number of > reasons, see archives) can't add domain users. What 'base-passwd'? And can you be a little more specific than "see archives"? I did a search with "cygwin base-passwd domain user" and I still have a sinking feeling when I see what links come up. > The outcome is, for this user, is that you get added > to a special group. In an effort to stop or at > least > slow ;) the number of emails to the list when stuff > didn't work because their user/group wasn't setup > correctly some detection code was added to > base-files > along with some instruction as to what to do. Right. And when I follow those instructions, it _still_ does not work: it does not allow me to remake the group, so I still get the message. So I am quite surprised that you say this message has reduced the number of emails to the list. Besides: the user should not have to know enough about domains and passwords to know why you have assumed that domain user stay domain users. And why are you so worried about the "problems there" when domain users are added (or did you mean not added) to passwd/group files? > Basically adding your user (using the domain flag if > appropriate) to the passwd and group files which is > what the message attempts to help the user to do. This sentence is missing a main verb. Besides: I tried this both with and without the -d flag and make group failed both ways. > It > appears (judging from the number of times this > question isn't now appearing on the lists) to have > worked for most people, but I'm always looking for > perfection ;) As I said, it surprises me that this would reduce the number, since it failed so quickly for me. But I always knew I was different;) > Hope this helps explain things, Partially, yes. But I am still mystified why both "mkgroup -l > /etc/passwd" and "mkgroup -l -d > /etc/passwd" fail. The error code from the latter is "Cannot get PDC, code = 2453". [snip] BTW: maybe _you_ never log on locally when running on a network domain, but I often do. So I find the restriction irritating. And I see from perusing the list that I am not the first to find it so. More important, in some benighted companies, users do not have Administrator privileges on their own Win95 workstations. They can only log on with their domain user name. Won't they want to be able to log on locally even more often (under Cygwin)? ----------------------- Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/