On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 01:37 +0000, James Fidell wrote:
> Quoting Aleksandar Milivojevic (alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> > Quoting Robin Mordasiewicz <robin@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Benjamin Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >> Try this one:
> > >>
> > >> chown -R c.smith.users /home/c.smith
> > >>
> > >> See the problem?
> > >>
> > > what about
> > > chown -R c.smith:users /home/c.smith
> >
> > The ':' is not really an solution because it doesn't really address the
> > problem.
> > The problem is that the first syntax (using dot) is valid.
> >
> > Consider you have users "foo" and "foo.bar" and group "bar". What
> > will "chown foo.bar file" do? Change the owner of the file to user
> > foo.bar or change the owner to foo and group to bar? Yes, you can use
> > column instead of dot on command line. However, many scripts still use
> > dot (and there is nothing wrong with it, since using dot to separate
> > username and group is perfectly valid).
>
> To argue that "." is disallowed in usernames because it has special
> syntactic meaning to "chown" then it may be necessary to explain why "-"
> is allowed in filenames when it has special syntactic meaning to many
> commands.
>
I disagree ... not that it matters what I think. If chown and chgrp
allow dots to seperate user and group, I don't think they should not be
allowed in user names (or at least this should be a major factor to
consider).
> chown(2) doesn't care about dots in usernames and it would be easy enough
> to code chown(1) to allow a dotted username to be escaped, so it's not
> really a compelling reason for disallowing them.
>
> However, where dots have not been allowed in usernames historically, it
> may be inadvisible to start allowing them to avoid breaking any code that
> implicitly or otherwise assumes that usernames won't contain dots.
>
BUT, the I think that the real reason that dots should not be allowed in
user names is because this doesn't allow dots:
RFC 4282 - The Network Access Identifier
There is no requirement to follow this for usernames; however, I think
we should.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060105/e7ab4289/attachment.bin
