On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Bernd Ernesti wrote:

> On Sat Apr 29 11:47:44 2000, David Brownlee wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> > 
> > > > 	basesrc/etc: group
> > > > useradd defaults to using the 'users' group, so add one.
> > > 
> > > Arg, you now hardcoded the group to a fixed number.
> > > 
> > > Let the admin who use that script decide which number he wants to
> > > use.
> > > 
> > > Please back that out.
> > 
> > 	Without a users group the default useradd will fail. Having
> > 	'useradd bob' fail with 'useradd: group users not found' is
> > 	pretty lame.
> 
> Ok, then useradd is broken. This needs to be fixed in useradd.

	So what group does useradd give to normal users? wheel? staff?
	Out of the box useradd should have an assigned group number and
	name for normal users. It doesn't have to be at 100 (though that
	just happens to match redhat and probably others). It doesn't
	even have to be 'users', though I'd be surprised if we can come
	up with a better name, but for the useradd tool to be useful,
	there should be one.

	Its hardcoded in the same way 'staff' is hardcoded:
	  If an admin wants a specific number, they will change it.
	  If they just want it present, then they have a sane default.
	  If they do not care, it doesn't bother them.
	  If they do not want it at all, they will be deleting others anyway.

	Had I known this would prove so contentious I would have asked on
	the list before committing - apologies for not doing so, it seemed
	self evident at the time.

		David/absolute
				   -- www.netbsd.org: Value design over hype --