DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=kpU9CjS1b70MirJc+Lgs4kZUKRyEItg8Rx73WDe2II4NBBEmQUUnU
	d6pPFDsCLjTHwDJBuoFDV8Xuqg1sMtBw96oQ9OpAEO7CzpQLES8fQj5uJCq8jkWc
	jompW4VD5GPj/Tgi9QmDbi+6u0r4jExbYaQLQie8M7E9UFJ8stuLzs=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:11:20 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Still testing needed: New passwd/group AD/SAM integration
Message-ID: <20140410191120.GL2437@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20140410145323 DOT GB2437 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5346E623 DOT 5000406 AT etr-usa DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="T/5gogCFEf4tDWvL"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5346E623.5000406@etr-usa.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

--T/5gogCFEf4tDWvL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Apr 10 12:42, Warren Young wrote:
> On 4/10/2014 08:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >* Support for Cygwin user names different from the Windows username.
> >
> >   This is a really fat problem.
>=20
> Who needs this functionality?

I don't remember, but some user on this list wrote in February about how
he uses this for... something.  Something to do with logging in to other
machines or so.

> Is it some legacy of passwd(5) compatibility, such as the wish to
> have colons in Windows login names?

No, it's just some legacy of how we allow this for /etc/passwd and
/etc/group.  See, for instance entries like

  root:S-1-5-21-544:0:

to fake a root group backed by the administrators group.  It=20
seemed like a good idea at the time (2000 or so) and this would
not be possible anymore.  But, in fact, I was trying to make sure
all the time that our applications don't rely on this.  And if we
actually have an application which relies on this, it's a bug.

> Does the move to AD/SAM eliminate the original need, so that you
> actually have *two* reasons to stop paying the runtime expense?

I never had this need.  To me it was just a funny extension.  But maybe
other users are using this, so I'm a bit unlucky now that I invented it
in the first place.


Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--T/5gogCFEf4tDWvL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=DIwT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--T/5gogCFEf4tDWvL--