From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Il2KT-0001UK-0J for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:00:53 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l9PCxQU2029113; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:59:26 GMT Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (mu-out-0910.google.com [209.85.134.185]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l9PCsrkh023750 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:54:53 GMT Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i10so805355mue for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:54:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=AI/2hE5LN4JKZQ3CpV3JBgdGQ95x2y3yyLHgCesyvkY=; b=s+KIZhCkpvrJ+oC7w8Gf+yVK+WBY8xizHf7PXuktVMdOZpWYQdEYAxMjJvzSES8CX7gYls6TEDRR/Q63jJ/uvYqwuo8RP4dv2leLdLY7xkr3cJk1pwSwZiHiH7MFhZMklL/T3Y9gxXNHR5pW86jaoDFxRU2ci+/Y4gK6AZL4dHg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=qgTc6ANhdAbiIuHPDat4x+qXNhFSYXSSfQbxMh3IFlNzpBJSxklkqPUFnbh0uY/Z1+F8WxXhjhU+OHyruct/iR3uFtUEC7W4XwJZ9mp9V63VrSgdBCh8Puo59MXJMQZ9w8ZIOtci/s+mAZRf21VC4vuv+3RaPEgHNrQ1xfDP7Lw= Received: by 10.82.154.12 with SMTP id b12mr3897086bue.1193316486692; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ilievnet.com ( [84.21.204.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y2sm4232211mug.2007.10.25.05.48.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:47:54 +0300 From: Daniel Iliev To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [SOLVED] pam limits In-Reply-To: <200710251425.03520.shrdlu@unlimitedmail.org> References: <47207f82.08b6660a.545e.ffffcb22@mx.google.com> <1193312749.27662.34.camel@blackwidow.nbk> <200710251425.03520.shrdlu@unlimitedmail.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <47209083.02e2660a.1a77.ffffca49@mx.google.com> X-Archives-Salt: 694966b6-0443-4a5f-8846-3be96dedef54 X-Archives-Hash: f7860d543112addfd8a68131a65a7773 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:25:03 +0200 Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: > On Thursday 25 October 2007, Albert Hopkins wrote: > > > Oh do they do that now? That was that nasty Red Hat extension. > > While one might agree or disagree about that, IMHO the problem now is > that the options in /etc/default/useradd are ignored. If I run > useradd -D it shows GROUP=100, but running useradd still > creates a new group named after the user and puts the user into it. > Exactly my point! :) You were ahead of me with this reply, but it came here after I sent my previous message. Sorry for the noise and redundancy. > After a little search, it seems that the USERGROUPS_ENAB directive > in /etc/login.defs, although not explicitly mentioning this issue, is > the culprit. Setting it to "no" restores the old behavior (putting > the new users into group "users"). > Big thanks! That's exactly what I needed. ;-)))) -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list