Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:48:41 +0200 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: "Jorge Mario G." <murcielako@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: "user/group _pflogd:_pflogd" what's with the _ ? Message-ID: <200406301948.48336.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <20040630174322.87487.qmail@web50310.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040630174322.87487.qmail@web50310.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Boundary-02=_A0v4A6hCtvNoXzc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 30 June 2004 19:43, Jorge Mario G. wrote: > Hi there > well > I dont know if pflogd requires the user/groupe to be > _pflogd. But if not why the _ ??? > from "our" point of view is ugly and "adds" > complication. aslo the standard of freebsd is normal > understandable usernames. The discussion about this took place on -current before I did the commit. "_" is a legal character in an user/groupname. Many people also stated that= =20 they prefer "_<service>" as it makes things clear. I personally have no=20 strong opinion one way or the other, but it's noteable less work (for me)=20 when the username is the same as in OpenBSD. I don't see how "_pflogd" is less understandable than "pflogd" and neither = do=20 I see any complication. =2D-=20 Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet --Boundary-02=_A0v4A6hCtvNoXzc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBA4v0AXyyEoT62BG0RAgDWAJ4234GMbuCKGHjFanfDlllB84dr9QCfSlFr d9UJpRHSxS73+pkZ79fzNyM= =GXUb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_A0v4A6hCtvNoXzc--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200406301948.48336.max>