On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 13:13 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 14:53 -0400, Oliver Schulze L. wrote:
> > Hi,
> ><snip>
> > this.is.avery.long.username
> >
> > All is working fine:
> > sendmail, dovecot, idx-smbldap-tools, ceti-poppassd, chown
> >
> > My question is, I'm breaking some standards? Or breaking some
> > posix specification by doing this?
> > It is recomended to have this kind of usernames on Linux?
> >
> ----
> actually, I'm surprised that you didn't notice a burp when you used
> chown command as the Red Hat tools will use a dot as a separator.
>
> i.e.
>
> chown craig.dom_users /path/to/file
> chown craig:dom_users /path/to/file
>
> are functionally the same thing but just because it doesn't toss an
> error the first time you
> chown this.is.a.very.long.username /somefile
> doesn't mean that it actually worked. If you did
> "chown this.is.a.very.long.username" /somefile
> it probably would work
For some time now, the man page ha espoused "user:group". Maybe they
finallly removed the support for the ".". It's been deprecated long
enough.
>
> I would suggest that you keep testing for adequacy.
Yes. Regardless of the ":/." on chown, other users have reported
problems with "." in user names. Check the archives.
HTH
Bill
-------------- 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/20060331/5ca989cb/attachment.bin
