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