On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 07:44:19AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > severity #308881 minor > tags #308881 confirmed pending > thanks > > Hi, > > On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:19:47AM +0300, Shaul Karl wrote: > > adduser --system --disabled-password testuser > > > > writes ! in the encrypted password field of /etc/shadow > > This is the intended behavior
adduser --system --disabled-password testuser and adduser --system --disabled-login testuser both writes ! in the encrypted password field of /etc/shadow. Is that the intended behavior? In this case there is no distinction between --{disabled-password,disabled-login}, is there? The way I interpret the OPTIONS sections of the man page, --disabled-login should have a stronger effect then --disabled-password: --disabled-login Do not run passwd to set the password. The user won't be able to use her account until the password is set. --disabled-password Like --disabled-login, but logins are still possible for example through SSH RSA keys, but not using password authentification. Shouldn't --disabled-login use '!' and --disabled-password use '*'? As an aside, --- adduser.8 2005-05-13 13:35:19.000000000 +0300 +++ adduser.8 2005-05-13 13:37:10.000000000 +0300 @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ .TP .B \-\-disabled-password Like \-\-disabled-login, but logins are still possible for example through -SSH RSA keys, but not using password authentification. +SSH RSA keys, but not using password authentication. .TP .B \-\-force\-badname By default, user and group names are checked against a configurable -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]