Re: exploring debian's users and groups
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Andrew> On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 09:37:57AM -0400, Sam Hartman
>> Many of the groups you state as local policy probably want to
>> be kept around for compatibility with programs people might
>> compile/install on their own.
Andrew> Certainly, no users/groups should be unconditionally
Andrew> removed from existing systems. The only problem for new
Andrew> systems would be if common third party software had
Andrew> hard-coded dependencies on these users/groups. Does any
Andrew> software explicitly rely on sync or staff? If so, does it
Andrew> use these users/groups in a logical, consistent way that
Andrew> we could document?
>> I'd be shocked to find a Unix system without bin or adm users
>> or without an adm group.
Andrew> adm seems to have a useful purpose in Debian (even if not
Andrew> codified in policy) and should IMO stay. bin seems to
Andrew> have no useful purpose (nobody identified one). It hardly
Andrew> matters if people are shocked to find something useless
Andrew> missing (unless people have a sentimental attachment to
Andrew> bin :-) ).
So the way I would expect to be shocked for bin would be that some
make install would blow out because something tried to chown something
to bin and it didn't exist.
I believe the value of having broken locally installed/built software
be able to use bin is worth the password file space.