Subject: Re: Group nesting?
To: Jason R Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: James Graham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/07/2001 17:20:11
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
# Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:14:24 -0700
# From: Jason R Thorpe <email@example.com>
# To: James Graham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
# Cc: BSD Current Users <email@example.com>
# Subject: Re: Group nesting?
# On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 04:30:47PM -0700, James Graham wrote:
# > Has anyone considered the possibility of implementing nested groups?
# > i.e.
# > wheel::0:root,adm0,adm1
# > operator::5:=wheel,oper1,oper4
# > I would find such a utility actually rather useful; is there anyone
# > who finds it distasteful, particularly, and if so, why?
# Why not use netgroups?
There are some environments in which running NIS is not desirable (bank
environments, for example, for security reasons), and I don't know anyone
who uses netgroups without mandating NIS at the same time.
NIS+ is a monster that I've not yet seen ANYone do correctly (including Sun
-- they don't even use it internally, from what I understand, though
this may have changed within the last year or two...).
I'm looking for something that I can implement and suggest not only
here, but to some of the other major vendors as well. Of course, they
may choose not to use it, but then, they might.
The only pertinence, I'm sure, is to NetBSD, but I'm thinking outside
the box as well.
# -- Jason R. Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NetBSD: We Come In Peace.