[ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 1.7.33-0.6

[Christian Franke]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Nov  6 21:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Nov  6 20:51, Christian Franke wrote:
>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> On Nov  6 19:34, Christian Franke wrote:
>>>>> But why does
>>>>>    mkpasswd -l (no host) -- adds a prefix
>>>>>    mkpasswd -l THISHOST -- does not add a prefix
>>>>> when the machine is in a domain? Not consistent, IMO.
>>>> That's right.  The reason is that the machine name is treated as a
>>>> foreign machine.  In theory, this should always generate names
>>>> with prefixed machine name, but this is an entirely different
>>>> code path in mkpasswd/mkgroup.  I guess this should be fixed.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't be unhappy about help...
>>> I would only fix it back to the old behaviour (mkpasswd -l = no prefix),
>>> sorry :-)
>>>
>>> At my real job we run several build & test machines which are members of a
>>> domain but use various local test user accounts (with no collision with
>>> domain users due to name space rules). Loosing the ability to use
>>> prefix-less local user names would break various existing test scripts
>>> (which are also used on Linux).
>>>
>>> Generated emails would have a from address with HOST+USER name part which
>>> might give interesting results if the mail system somehow interprets the
>>> NAME+EXTENSION address syntax...
>>>
>>> So there are use cases where prefix-less local user names are needed. This
>>> should be still supported, e.g. by mkpasswd -l, IMO.
>> But then... why not keep mkpasswd -L and use that instead?
> On second thought, it's completely wrong to allow printing local
> accounts from another machine without prefix.

I agree.

> In theory there should be only one option -l [machine], which prints the
> local accounts of the current machine unprefixed (standalone machine) or
> prefixed (domain machine), and always prefixed for a foreign machine.
> The -L option can just go away.

I disgree.

Why not keep the old behavior of -l/-L for user names of current machine 
for those uses cases which rely on it? Those users who are happy with 
prefixed local user names and non-prefixed domain user names would 
simply no longer need to use mkpasswd (which is good).

Package search shows 156 usr/bin/*-config scripts. How many of these use 
mkpasswd?

BTW: None of my Linux machines have local user names with own HOSTNAME 
as prefix :-)

Christian


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple