On Mon, 07.07.14 13:16, Leonid Isaev (lis...@umail.iu.edu) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 05:40:42PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Mon, 07.07.14 11:08, Leonid Isaev (lis...@umail.iu.edu) wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation... > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 12:26:03PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > I wasn#t aware of grpck, and quite frankly don't think it makes much > > > > sense, what the tool is doing. > > > > > > Why? Checking syntax can never hurt... > > > > Well, I am not opposed to that. I am just saying that otherwise the > > current logic so nicely considers an account with a missing counterpart > > in /etc/shadow disabled with no way to log in, which is exactly what we > > want here. However, grpck tool breaks that... > > Ah, right. So you mean grpck _and_ pwck. > > Is this a new systemd-only thinking, or is it something to be taken to the > shadow upstream (because {grp,pw}ck is provided by shadow)?
Well, I do like the behaviour of things when an entry is missing. But then again, I figure this is something to fix in systemd, and make systemd create the entry in the shadow file, too. Added to TODO list. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel