* Bob Proulx (bob@proulx.com) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> [2002-09-16 16:10:58 -0400]: > > There is no overriding reason or need for named to have an entry in > > base-passwd. It's simple enough for the package to add the user. > > Even ssh does this, and for much the same reason. > > Note that I was only stating that a local named is very common and was > refuting the statements that no one runs one. I expressed no opinion > on whether 'named' should be in base-passwd or not. As pointed out elsewhere, and as I was getting back to above, the popularity is unimportant in this question. So, therefore, unless I've missed something, we're all agreed (or abstaining) that a bind user is not needed in base-passwd. Well, that wasn't so hard I suppose, though probably a great deal more than was necessary. :) Stephen
Attachment:
pgpXBzfOZViPs.pgp
Description: PGP signature