Re: Password aging in passwd, differing chfn implementations
At 2002/2/25 20:58-0500 Matt Wilson writes:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 12:46:03PM +1100, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> >
> > Thats correct. At the 2001 NY LSB Workgroup meeting it was agreed that
> > where there was a conflict between a command implemented by util-linux
> > and shadow-utils the shadow-utils version would be used.
>
> I must have been in the packaging group meeting at the time. Was
> there any rationale given for this decision?
We did spend some time discussing it and the decision has been
mentioned on this and/or lsb-spec list a few times since then, but to
be honest I don't remember the details. Maybe someone else who was
there can remember better than me.
>It seems like linux distributions are fairly evenly split between the
>two implementation, so there is no clear best practice.
As you've discovered to take the common subset of functionality
between the two versions of sets of commands (and its not limited to
passwd and chfn) its necessary to both remove a number of options and
add extra commands to the specifications. I'd consider this to be a
significant change to the specification and not just a fix of
something obviously wrong.
Regards,
Chris
--
cyeoh@au.ibm.com
IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia
Reply to: