From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 29 04:30:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9102CE for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:30:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623A28FC12 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9T4U1YL067767 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:30:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q9T4U1nN067766; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:30:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:30:01 GMT Message-Id: <201210290430.q9T4U1nN067766@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Mark Johnston Subject: Re: bin/173005: PW(8) - 'pw usermod' causes Segmentation fault: 11 (core dumped) X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mark Johnston List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:30:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/173005; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mark Johnston To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, jb.1234abcd@gmail.com Cc: Subject: Re: bin/173005: PW(8) - 'pw usermod' causes Segmentation fault: 11 (core dumped) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:15:55 -0400 The error messages aren't different by design though - the different behaviour for -g "" is a side-effect of the change I mentioned in the first email. There is no practical distinction between those two errors anyway - they come from two essentially identical checks at different points in the code. In fact, the "... is not defined" check is redundant and can be removed/simplified if my patch is applied. Specifically, that check only fails with -g "" in the unpatched pw(8). -Mark