On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:41:21AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Robert Connolly wrote:
> > On Monday March 26 2007 01:11, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
What happened to trimming? I know gmail likes to hide quoted text,
but for the rest of us this is a bit of a pain. ;)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/
On Monday March 26 2007 02:41, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> One of the reasons for LFS and BLFS is to explain what is gong on. If
> there is no technical merit to it and there are reasons against it, then
> "we have always done it that way" is insufficient.
Okay, fair enough. 'nobody' isn't a human user
Robert Connolly wrote:
> On Monday March 26 2007 01:11, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> The use of 65534 for a uid or gid is not a good idea. It comes from old
>> time usage in nfs and nowhere else. *If* nfs does not find a nobody
>> user, it defaults to -2. Since the uid/gid are 16 bit numbers, this
>> e
On 3/25/07, Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Using 99 works, but I think 65534 is more widely understood as the 'nobody'
> ID... in that if you see a uid 65534 in a tar archive you automatically know
> it once belonged to 'nobody'. A group ID of 65533 would be easy to assume as
> a cl
On Monday March 26 2007 01:11, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The use of 65534 for a uid or gid is not a good idea. It comes from old
> time usage in nfs and nowhere else. *If* nfs does not find a nobody
> user, it defaults to -2. Since the uid/gid are 16 bit numbers, this
> equates to 65534. There are t
Robert Connolly wrote:
> On Sunday March 25 2007 22:30, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> Also, I'm wondering if there would be problems running scripts, etc.,
>> when HOME=/dev/null. The dummy user we create for coreutils is given
>> /root as it's home directory. Robert, do you see any issues running
>> the
On Sunday March 25 2007 22:30, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Also, I'm wondering if there would be problems running scripts, etc.,
> when HOME=/dev/null. The dummy user we create for coreutils is given
> /root as it's home directory. Robert, do you see any issues running
> the testsuites as nobody?
I use
On 3/25/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > On 3/25/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I don't agree. The nobody user should never have a valid login shell or
> >> home directory. If a temporary user is needed for the Coreutils tests,
> >> add a temp
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 3/25/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>> On 3/25/07, Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I dunno if any of you have tried it, but we can use nobody for the
Coreutils
tests. Add "nogroup" and "nobody" to /etc/group,
On 3/25/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > On 3/25/07, Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I dunno if any of you have tried it, but we can use nobody for the
> >> Coreutils
> >> tests. Add "nogroup" and "nobody" to /etc/group, and "nobody" in
> >> /e
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 3/25/07, Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I dunno if any of you have tried it, but we can use nobody for the Coreutils
>> tests. Add "nogroup" and "nobody" to /etc/group, and "nobody" in /etc/passwd
>> in the "nobody" group. For the src/su command, add '-s /bi
On 3/25/07, Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dunno if any of you have tried it, but we can use nobody for the Coreutils
> tests. Add "nogroup" and "nobody" to /etc/group, and "nobody" in /etc/passwd
> in the "nobody" group. For the src/su command, add '-s /bin/sh' so
> that /bin/false
I dunno if any of you have tried it, but we can use nobody for the Coreutils
tests. Add "nogroup" and "nobody" to /etc/group, and "nobody" in /etc/passwd
in the "nobody" group. For the src/su command, add '-s /bin/sh' so
that /bin/false won't be used.
I'd also like to suggest we use /sbin/nolog
13 matches
Mail list logo
