Re: nogroup or nobody ?
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 03:16:14PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:18:10PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > It is currently policy to use nogroup. If you think debian should switch
> > > to the (gramatically incorrect) nobody group, post a policy change
> >
> > Do we care about grammar more then being LSB-compliant and using the
> > same names/groups as other Linux oder BSD?
>
> fwiw OpenBSD has both a nobody and nogroup groups.
>
That's a good idea for legacy upgrades I think...
> > > proposal and a transition plan.
> >
> > Well, I'll maybe do that, but first I want to ensure that I'm not the
> > only one who would be interested in changing this name. Also I'm quite
> > sure that this change would only happen for unstable and so take some
> > time until the proposal would be considered.
>
> the only way you can satisfy a possible need for a nobody group is to
> add that in addition to leaving the nogroup group in place. otherwise
> you WILL break local admin configurations that debian is unaware of.
>
Why not just add the nobody group upon upgrade? If you do a clean
install you will only get a "nobody" group, and there won't be a
"nogroup" group.
Reply to: