Re: Password aging in passwd, differing chfn implementations
- To: Christopher Yeoh <email@example.com>
- Cc: Matt Wilson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Password aging in passwd, differing chfn implementations
- From: Matt Taggart <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 13:04:47 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20020304200447.A8AAC37CF5@carmen.fc.hp.com>
- In-reply-to: Message from Christopher Yeoh <email@example.com> of "Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:53:53 +1100." <firstname.lastname@example.org.HOWL>
- References: <20020225203518.K28496@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <email@example.com.HOWL> <20020225205818.L28496@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org.HOWL>
Christopher Yeoh writes...
> 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.
If the rationale for this is found, it could be recorded in the soon to be
created rationale document, not just the mailing list.
Matt Taggart Linux Development Lab
email@example.com HP Linux Systems Operation