Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 02:57:23 -0400
Message-Id: <200106040657.CAA16211@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010604095606.14670D@is> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:56:30 +0300 (IDT))
Subject: Re: Re-Submit: add extra fields to structs group and passwd
References:  <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010604095606 DOT 14670D AT is>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> Empty passwords?  Isn't it better to return some string, like
> "password"?  We do similar things with username and group.

No, because the string must be a hash of the password, not the
password itself.  "x" is probably better than anything else; many unix
systems (including Linux) have "x" in the password field of
/etc/passwd for security reasons.

Unix accounts that do not have a password *will* return "" for the
password field, and since DJGPP "accounts" don't have passwords,
returning an empty password field to indicate that seems to make the
most sense.