[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Knoble) wrote on 22.03.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As far as ISVs go, the default group to which a given new user belongs
> has no bearing on most apps. If a particular app must know about such
> things, it cannot be LSB-compliant, since it has to know about
> distributio
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:20:27 -0600
The NASA Center for Computational Sciences (NCCS) recommends <= 999
reserved for sys admins.
There are two issues here. System administrators would be wise to use
uids > 1000 for user ID's, since some OS's (notably Irix, i
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In any case, if a vendor installation, or program, requires a particular
> umask for the "proper" creation of files, there should be no problem in
> setting the environment to reflect the desired umask, so what value are we
> gaining for the spec in speci
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >Debian uses 002 and the "what a waste" user method. Having only lived in
> >this environment, I don't see the advantages of the 022 system. Aside from
> >"wasting" a, sometimes large, number of groups, why is 022 "superior"?
>
> Dale,
>
> Bei
På 2000-Mar-22 klokka 23:58:19 -0800 skrivet H. Peter Anvin:
: Jim Knoble wrote:
: > A pedantic detail: No interactive questions. [...] unless the user
: > requests it. [...]
:
: ... unless you have an -i --interactive flag, like cp or rm.
True. That's when the user requests the query.
: Howe
Jim Knoble wrote:
>
> På 2000-Mar-23 klokka 02:33:18 -0500 skrivet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> : [...] If they need to use id's between 100 and 999 they should be able
> : to force the user add program, but they should be asked the "are you
> : sure" question.
>
> A pedantic detail: No interactive qu
På 2000-Mar-23 klokka 02:33:18 -0500 skrivet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
: [...] If they need to use id's between 100 and 999 they should be able
: to force the user add program, but they should be asked the "are you
: sure" question.
A pedantic detail: No interactive questions. A '-f' or '--force' flag
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:20:27 -0600
The NASA Center for Computational Sciences (NCCS) recommends <= 999
reserved for sys admins.
There are two issues here. System administrators would be wise to use
uids > 1000 for user ID's, since some OS's (notably Irix, i
This debate is no longer productive. As Alan Cox has already pointed
out, specifying a umask is a poor idea; default umasks fall under local
system or network policy. I initially voiced approval for Jim
Kingdon's rewrite, but after much thought, i rescind that approval.
Specifying the default gr
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/22/2000 12:56:40 PM
>
> To: George Kraft/Austin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc: Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: should not specify default group for users
>
>
>
>
&
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Debian uses 002 and the "what a waste" user method. Having only lived in
> >this environment, I don't see the advantages of the 022 system. Aside from
> >"wasting" a, sometimes large, number of groups, why is 022 "superior"?
>
> Dale,
>
> Being in
ndards
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/22/2000 12:56:40 PM
To: George Kraft/Austin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: should not specify default group for users
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Debi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Debian uses 002 and the "what a waste" user method. Having only lived in
> >this environment, I don't see the advantages of the 022 system. Aside from
> >"wasting" a, sometimes large, number of groups, why is 022 "superior"?
>
> Dale,
>
> Being in group "users" allo
>Debian uses 002 and the "what a waste" user method. Having only lived in
>this environment, I don't see the advantages of the 022 system. Aside from
>"wasting" a, sometimes large, number of groups, why is 022 "superior"?
Dale,
Being in group "users" allows me to turn on and off the group bits
Previously V man wrote:
> Debian metod is really well working, but it's a little too much
> "particular". I propose a little change.
While we're proposing let me propose something else:
We basically need three range:
* 0-99, reserved for static uids and gids that should be present on all
syst
Just to throw a monkey wrench into the works ;-)
Debian uses 002 and the "what a waste" user method. Having only lived in
this environment, I don't see the advantages of the 022 system. Aside from
"wasting" a, sometimes large, number of groups, why is 022 "superior"?
Thanks,
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Do we allocate a range very high in 32bit uid space as well ? Discuss 8)
> >
> > Debian has reserved the range 6-64999 for packages that need static
> > uids. (ie weird things like qmail which insist on setting a uid at
> > compile-time). It's not us
> Sadly it seems that 99 uids won't be enough in the future, especially
> now that people are realizing that you should not run everything as
> daemon or nobody...
Indeed. But 100 is the first normal user imported by NIS on rather a lot
of sites. That prevents us using them
> > Do we allocate a r
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>Previously Alan Cox wrote:
>> Customers want <100
>Sadly it seems that 99 uids won't be enough in the future, especially
>now that people are realizing that you should not run everything as
>daemon or nobody...
>Debian has reserved 100-999 for `dynamically allocated syst
Previously Alan Cox wrote:
> Customers want <100
Sadly it seems that 99 uids won't be enough in the future, especially
now that people are realizing that you should not run everything as
daemon or nobody...
Debian has reserved 100-999 for `dynamically allocated system users and
groups', and we on
> > The two issues are unrelated.
>
> The way that is traditionally done in the Unix world is that if the user
> shell is found in /etc/shells then it is a normal user. Does this
> suffice?
I think so yes
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > I agreed to your earlier changes, not the recent ones. :-) If by default
> > all users are in group "users", then the umask must be 022 or the more
> > paranoid 077. The umask cannot be 002 in this case; otherwise, other
> > /home users on the system will have write acces
> If by default all users are in group "users", then the umask must be
> 022 or the more paranoid 077.
Well, neither your initial checkin nor my suggested rewrite say this
(that is, they didn't leave open 077 as a possibility).
Why should we standardize umasks? I really don't see what it has to
> I agreed to your earlier changes, not the recent ones. :-) If by default
> all users are in group "users", then the umask must be 022 or the more
> paranoid 077. The umask cannot be 002 in this case; otherwise, other
> /home users on the system will have write access.
This is not the case. Y
>>OK, I've checked in Alan Cox's text (along with a few FIXME comments
>>of my own, for things which should be looked at more).
I agreed to your earlier changes, not the recent ones. :-) If by default
all users are in group "users", then the umask must be 022 or the more
paranoid 077. The u
> Since there are only two of use bantering over this topic, I would be
> inclined to leave what is there as-is until we have a consensus.
That ignores the fundamental point you haven't answered. Which is that
there is no point specifying it at all either way and it does not help
anyone by doing s
> I appreciate the review and edit.
OK, I've checked in Alan Cox's text (along with a few FIXME comments
of my own, for things which should be looked at more).
There is plenty more to do with this section but I'll leave it at that
for the moment.
The umask of 022 or 002 is directly related to the "normal" user being in
the global "users" group, or the user's own group containing only the one
user (what a waste); therefore, the umask should be specified.
The SysV, BSD, and even the GNU/Linux man pages say that the default umask
is 022;
> Who's standard do we adopt? Ninty-nine does not seem large enough for uid
> growth. What about the gid range?
Customers want <100
> In addition to your admin uid <= 99 proposal, should there be an admin
> range for gids?
Customers want <100
Do we allocate a range very high in 32bit uid spac
>We should specific the numeric range as below 100. Putting my vendor hat
>on I can assure you that customers demand this already. having
accidentally
>strayed into the >=100 territory we got roasted for it and the customers
>expected us to keep system uids below 100. This kind of assumption is
> Both UNIX and Linux distributions alike are all over the place with respect
> to uid and gid groupings. The LSB should not attempt to regulate the
> losing battle over the numeric range of uids and gids, but rather just
> specify the mnemonic user name and group name pairs.
We should specific
The umask of 022 for the "normal" user enables the proper benefit from the
group access bits on a file. Getting in the habit of placing users in
their own group and globally specifying a umask of 002 sets up the
unexperienced system admin with the opportunity of creating files rw-rw-r--
instead
03/20/2000 04:02:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: should not specify default group for users
What do people (especially George) think of the following change? Or
to put it another way, how does specifying a default here enhance
application portabili
> +Systems will typically put all end-users in the same group "users"
> +with the default umask of 022. Other
> +systems (or system administrators) may put users
> +in their own group with the umask of 002.
> +Applications should not assume one or the other.
Neither the old or new clause reflect
På 2000-Mar-20 klokka 17:02:53 -0500 skrivet Jim Kingdon:
: What do people (especially George) think of the following change? Or
: to put it another way, how does specifying a default here enhance
: application portability?
Looks good to me. I see no reason to specify a default; i consider
user
What do people (especially George) think of the following change? Or
to put it another way, how does specifying a default here enhance
application portability?
Index: usersgroups.m4
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/lsb/website/spec/usersgroups
36 matches
Mail list logo
