Re: Users & Groups specification proposal, draft 1
>> I'm not sure what the LSB process is, but this past January I posted a
>> there any formal acceptance criteria that I need to meet before I
>> begin SGML/SQL coding what I posted?
>The process is roughly that you just go ahead and check it in
>(especially if the text has already gone through the lsb-spec mailing
>list), and we worry about formalities later in the process.
>A few quick reactions (again, this is to
>http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/lsb-spec-0001/msg00056.html
>):
>* What's the purpose of standardizing /etc/passwd and /etc/group? Is
> the intent to provide a way for creating/modifying accounts? Surely
> we want something which is more general (e.g. shadow,
> /etc/nsswitch.conf, LDAP, NIS, &c)? We have useradd, groupadd,
> &c.... Presumably I just misunderstand the intent here.
I was over documenting on the initial draft... Only the APIs should be
documented, and not the actual internal formats of the /etc files.
Interestingly, I have never been on a system where I used the group
"password" field.
>* The text 'The "group" user database should only be read from
> the following APIs' should also allow PAM (PAM might be implemented
> by calling those API's, but we need to say that applications can
> asume that PAM is doing an OK thing). Likewise for passwords.
Noted.
>* What do SSM, URM, PRM, and RPM stand for? Other standards, it
> sounds like, but is there a more complete cite anywhere?
I was just being ganular on the BSD references (ie., System Manager's
Manual, User's Reference Manual, Programmer's Reference Manual). I didn't
know if these will be eventually sorted by group according to their
end-user versus sys admin usages.
>* Why do you omit "newgrp" from the LSB? There is a comment there
> about chgrp but I don't see what newgrp and chgrp have to do with
> each other.
You are correct. I don't know why I have newgrp marked or commented that
way... :-)
>* Why standardize rpc.rusersd, rusers, and rwho?
Just being complete on who was consuming uid/gid. You are correct that
this should not be in the specification.
>In general this looks about right, though.
The "Users & Groups" section will be trimmed down alot once the "Commands &
Utilities" section is SQL/SGML coded. The "Users & Groups" section does
not need to relist everything like I did...
Thanks,
George Kraft IV
gk4@us.ibm.com
512-838-2688; t/l 678-2688
IBM Linux Technology Center, Linux Standards
Reply to: