[ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 1.7.33-0.6
Mon Nov 10 19:21:00 GMT 2014
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Nov 7 21:51, Christian Franke wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>> You are always free to change the passwd/group files manually:
>>> $ mkpasswd -l | sed -e 's/^[^:]*+//' > /etc/passwd
>> Of course, and it is good that this is still possible. But this would
>> require that all existing scripts relying on old behavior need to be
>> I still don't understand why this backward compatibility break of "mkpasswd
>> -l" was mandatory.
>> Most *-config scripts using "mkpasswd -l -u USER" may need to be changed.
> Definitely. The change is inevitable since most scripts using mkpasswd
> or mkgroup do so to create entries in /etc/passwd and /etc/group. But
> this doesn't make sense anymore, or if so, only marginally so.
What will be the behavior of the predecessor of e.g. the csih function
csih_create_unprivileged_user if called with USER without HOST prefix,
machine is inside of domain and the user does not exist:
- create local windows USER and require the config script to retrieve
the actual Cygwin HOST+USER name,
- fail and tell the calling config script to retry with HOST+USER
instead (if possible),
- create local windows USER and create a /etc/passwd entry to support a
non-prefixed Cygwin USER in this case,
- one of the above, selected by a new option.
>> Local scripts from Cygwin users which use "mkpasswd -l" may need to be
> They are not supposed to use mkpasswd anymore since they don't need it,
> only in very special circumstances.
Wouldn't it be better to let mkpasswd -l simply fail with an explanatory
error message instead of producing non-backward compatible results? Or
at least print a warning to stderr?
> And then I expect that they will
> have to change the created files manually anyway.
It depends. One of my use cases relies on non-prefixed local user names
which match the (also non-prefixed :-) windows local user names. The
usual duplicates with domain users (Administrator, Guest) never resulted
in any problems.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin