From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 13 16:21:14 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A11816A4CE; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:21:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.web.de (smtp05.web.de [217.72.192.209]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE28243D33; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:21:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yanestra@web.de) Received: from dsl-213-023-212-223.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.212.223] helo=web.de) by smtp.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (WEB.DE 4.99 #566) id 1AVK0V-0001u9-00; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:21:11 +0100 Message-ID: <3FDBACFB.7080001@web.de> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:21:15 +0100 From: "Klaus-J. Wolf" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: current@freebsd.org References: <3FDB731A.7020301@web.de> <3FDB969D.1090606@migus.org> In-Reply-To: <3FDB969D.1090606@migus.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: yanestra@web.de cc: Robert Watson cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: [RC1] Login not possible X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: current@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:21:14 -0000 Hi, Adam, I don't want to comment on the rightness of a certain group limit, but I surely want to comment on the problem of migrating a working box into one on which no-one can log on. There should be a big message in UPDATING, best is ASCII-art with ANSI blinking letters... .-) Kind regards, k.j. Adam C. Migus wrote: > I think you'll find this documented in several UNIX books such as "The > Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System," for > example. I believe it's regarded as "common knowledge" among UNIX > folk. Whether it's right or wrong to regard it as such, document it > per implementation or even have it as a limitation is debatable I > suppose but it's there. >