Joe Ciccone wrote:
> I put this page together with the users and groups from LFS and BLFS.
> The only addition I made to this page is a users groups with a gid of
> 100. Anyone that wants to set something in stone, this would be a good
> place to start. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~jciccone/use
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Also, you may want to rephrase your comments to not use words that some
may find offensive. Name calling is never appropriate.
What are you talking about? You lost me on that comment.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch
I put this page together with the users and groups from LFS and BLFS.
The only addition I made to this page is a users groups with a gid of
100. Anyone that wants to set something in stone, this would be a good
place to start. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~jciccone/users.html
--
http://linuxfro
I sent this to -book when it should have gone to -dev.
-- Bruce
Original Message
Subject: Host System Requirements Page
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:55:30 -0500
From: Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LFS Book Maintenance List
I rewrote this page. Tell me what you think.
http
Jim Gifford wrote:
We should be providing all the users and groups and let the people
choose what they want to remove. Instead of just giving them the bare
minimum. We need to provide a fully functional system, not a half-baked
one.
Exactly. We had a same point. :).
William Zhou
--
http:
Jim Gifford wrote:
> We should be providing all the users and groups and let the people
> choose what they want to remove. Instead of just giving them the bare
> minimum. We need to provide a fully functional system, not a half-baked
> one.
We do provide a fully functional system. A user just ha
Archaic wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:28:10PM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
There is suppose to be a master list of users/groups, I've never
seen it myself. If that was published, we could take care of it in LFS.
There basically is. Take what is in LFS and add what is in BLFS. Any
g
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Everybody has their own way of doing things. I prefer to only have the
users/groups in my files that are necessary for the packages I install.
That way if a number comes up on a ls -l, it flags the problem right away.
You may want to do things differently. That's OK. Howeve
Archaic wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:55:25PM +0100, William Zhou wrote:
I prefer the CLFS way and I don't have to worry about the user/group
management any more.
Which is precisely why I don't like it. You should have to worry about
it if the goal is education. Then you can devise any nu
Jim Gifford wrote:
> In CLFS, we create all the users and groups, this will solve all issues
> if LFS will follow. It will also simplify the BLFS instructions to
> adding users to the appropriate groups. It's a plus for all, eliminates
> so of tedious work the BLFS has to do managing users/groups a
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:28:10PM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
>There is suppose to be a master list of users/groups, I've never
> seen it myself. If that was published, we could take care of it in LFS.
There basically is. Take what is in LFS and add what is in BLFS. Any
gaps in gid numbering a
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:55:25PM +0100, William Zhou wrote:
>
> I prefer the CLFS way and I don't have to worry about the user/group
> management any more.
Which is precisely why I don't like it. You should have to worry about
it if the goal is education. Then you can devise any number of metho
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:50:07AM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
> In CLFS, we create all the users and groups, this will solve all issues
Actually, it won't solve all issues. Remember, my focus is on the equal
weight of technical correctness and education. Adding all possible
groups and rules in one
Exactly, and the LFS book would point to this list as to keep it current.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 4/21/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan,
> There is suppose to be a master list of users/groups, I've never
> seen it myself. If that was published, we could take care of it in LFS.
That's what I mean, though. There can't be a master list in LFS
because many of the users and
Dan,
There is suppose to be a master list of users/groups, I've never
seen it myself. If that was published, we could take care of it in LFS.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 4/21/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In CLFS, we create all the users and groups, this will solve all issues
> if LFS will follow. It will also simplify the BLFS instructions to
> adding users to the appropriate groups. It's a plus for all, eliminates
> so of tedious work the BLFS h
Jim Gifford wrote:
In CLFS, we create all the users and groups, this will solve all issues
if LFS will follow. It will also simplify the BLFS instructions to
adding users to the appropriate groups. It's a plus for all, eliminates
so of tedious work the BLFS has to do managing users/groups an
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 20:12, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Currently we have NCPFS-2.2.4 in the book. This package contains
> client and administration tools for use with Novell networks.
>
>...
>
> Due to the lack of interest and the lack of testing capability, I
> propose dropping this package from
El Viernes, 21 de Abril de 2006 06:26, Justin R. Knierim escribió:
> Hi guys,
>
> After manually reviewing packages and patches, these out-of-order
> patches have always bugged me, so here is a patch. Applies to LFS
> trunk, moves inetutils patches before kbd, alpha orders tar security and
> sparc
In CLFS, we create all the users and groups, this will solve all issues
if LFS will follow. It will also simplify the BLFS instructions to
adding users to the appropriate groups. It's a plus for all, eliminates
so of tedious work the BLFS has to do managing users/groups and gives
everyone a ful
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:38:54PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
Two other things which are OSS only are the proprietary binaries
(Firefox plugins), macromedia Flash and Realplayer. I miss them, but not
enough to make me want to compile OSS (I get better sound quality if I
keep
Archaic wrote:
The other example, audio devices, would basically be the same. The
devices would be created with their default permissions and group owned
by root, but would be created with the proper names and in the proper
directories. BLFS would then have the perfect forum to layout what needs
23 matches
Mail list logo
