From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jan 16 6:18:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (ringworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EDDBF37B699 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:18:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 8033 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Jan 2001 14:17:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:17:03 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev To: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: no newgroup/newgrp in FreeBSD? Message-ID: <20010116161703.H364@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: arch@FreeBSD.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Heyas, Is there a reason there is no newgroup/newgrp(1) in FreeBSD, besides the fact that the kernel can support a simultaneous set of groups? Still, it would be nice for compatibility (and SUSv2 compliance) to have some kind of newgrp/newgroup implementation, albeit even a null one. On http://ringwraith.online.bg/~roam/devel/c/sysutils/newgrp-1.0.tar.gz there is something that just might do the trick (although I'm not quite clear on the handling of supplementary groups according to SUSv2..) G'luck, Peter PS. And yes, I've heard before that FreeBSD is still quite far from SUSv2 compliance; still, I had to write this for a friend with some very weird shell/web hosting requirements, who did not want to change his existing scripts' modus operandi.. and then I thought, what the hell, somebody might be interested in that, or just tell me why I've wasted my time :) PPS. And yes, I do realize that in FreeBSD, the supplementary groups act much the same as the primary group.. but still.. :) -- If this sentence were in Chinese, it would say something else. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message