On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 20:52:29 +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > No word from you on whether you configured it for static gid/uid >> > allocation. >> >> Static? No mention of that in the wikipage so I don't know... > > Everything's there: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UserCreation#Documentation I've read it -- I guess you mean whether I did /usr/sbin/update-alternatives --set fedora-usermgmt /etc/fedora/usermgmt/scripts.shadow-utils and the answer is no, I didn't. Hmmmm. Ok, if I re-read that page and translate the phrase "Administrators who want static uid/gid allocations..." into "this defaults to a no-op - to make it _do_ something..." then maybe it starts expressing things a bit better :-/ > Even links to postings which answer you other questions: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UserCreation#Background Ugh, this isn't pretty. From one of the emails: > fedora-usermgmt in it's unconfigured state was the same as useradd. perhaps that line, in wrapped in <blink> tags should be in the wiki? Perhaps I misunderstood the goal of the tool - but I see there's plenty of flamewars about this. Shame that the controversy has shaped this into its current state of "actually, it doesn't work" out of the box. In any case, Real Men just hardcode the uid and so what if there's a conflict or the local admin has an opinion - ;-) cheers, m -- martin.langhoff@xxxxxxxxx martin@xxxxxxxxxx -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
