Subject: Re: admin/15698: /etc/security vs. /etc/shells in regard to /sbin/nologin
To: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/22/2002 21:35:54
[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 20:14:03 (-0500), Andrew Brown wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: admin/15698: /etc/security vs. /etc/shells in regard to /sbin/nologin
> this sounds reasonable, but, iirc, will later cause accounts that have
> no password to be declared "inactive but with a valid shell".
Yes, of course -- that's the desired behaviour. If you don't want
some/all of those reported then that's a different issue.
> a better fix might be to specifically allow /sbin/nologin as a shell
> at the point that emits the complaint in question.
No, I don't think so. At least with adding the shells explicitly to the
list in the array you don't have to mess with an ever more complex
expression in the logic of the program.....
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>