»Borsenkow Andrej« sagte am 2002-02-19 um 11:13:30 +0300 :
and it has low (=system) UID ... so I guess it is not preserved by
update-passwd.
So you also agree it's a bug, don't you? Especially if it's not a
standard account, it must be preserved.
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote:
You probably wouldn't have to put it back if amanda were in the distro
;-) (although that is not a solution!).
I have amanda srpms that compile and install fine on 8.x (but not quite
tested yet ...) ... anyone interested?
But my other question is, are system uid's guaranteed to be the same
Borsenkow Andrej sagte am 2002-02-19 um 11:13:30 +0300 :
and it has low (=system) UID ... so I guess it is not preserved by
update-passwd.
So you also agree it's a bug, don't you? Especially if it's not a
standard account, it must be preserved.
It is policy dependent. If policy is
»Borsenkow Andrej« sagte am 2002-02-19 um 12:54:50 +0300 :
It is policy dependent. If policy is to have all standard system
accounts in one package (or at least let setup know all _possible_
system accounts) - it is not a bug.
Okay, but what would be the proper way to add custom system
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 09:14:48AM +0300, Borsenkow Andrej wrote:
It never did it for me (and judging by small number of reports for
others) so what so different in your password file?
I recall seeing quite a few reports. I dunno what is so different on
mine. One of the accounts
