about the id -Gn

about the id -Gn

[Frederic Lorrain]

We found difficulties using the bash command "Id -Gn" on NT box.

We did not want to use only primary groups and so we first created
several groups. We added users in many groups in file c:\etc\group.

In spite of this modification, result of command "Id -Gn" still displays
the primary group.

Did we make an error ? Is it possible to use many groups for users in
cygnus bash NT ?

Best regards

-- 
mailto:Frederic.Lorrain@cnen.de.edf.fr - Seti IC
EDF DE/CAO -

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: about the id -Gn

[Corinna Vinschen]

Frederic Lorrain wrote:
> 
> We found difficulties using the bash command "Id -Gn" on NT box.
> 
> We did not want to use only primary groups and so we first created
> several groups. We added users in many groups in file c:\etc\group.
> 
> In spite of this modification, result of command "Id -Gn" still displays
> the primary group.
> 
> Did we make an error ? Is it possible to use many groups for users in
> cygnus bash NT ?

Neither with b20.1 nor with 1.0
But it's already possible with the developer snapshots and so
it will be possible in the next net release (1.1.0), too.

Please note that the _real_ security settings are managed
by NT/W2K. The insertion of supplementary groups in /etc/groups
is only a help/hint for you. There's no command `newgroup' and
there's no need for it in NT/W2K.

Corinna

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: about the id -Gn

[Frederic Lorrain]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> Neither with b20.1 nor with 1.0
> But it's already possible with the developer snapshots and so
> it will be possible in the next net release (1.1.0), too.
> 
> Please note that the _real_ security settings are managed
> by NT/W2K. The insertion of supplementary groups in /etc/groups
> is only a help/hint for you. There's no command `newgroup' and
> there's no need for it in NT/W2K.
> 
> Corinna
> 

Thank you for replying so quickly

Actually, any NT4.0 users may have several groups. So, why does the
command "mkgroup" extract only the primary group of each user ?

Even if the group file is modified manually to add complementary group
to users, the
command "Id -Gn" does not return all groups.

To resolve this problem we intend to rewrite the "groups" command. Is
there a best
solution ?

Best regards

-- 
mailto:Frederic.Lorrain@cnen.de.edf.fr - Seti IC
EDF DE/CAO

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: about the id -Gn

[Corinna Vinschen]

Frederic Lorrain wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >[...]
> > by NT/W2K. The insertion of supplementary groups in /etc/groups
> > is only a help/hint for you. There's no command `newgroup' and
> > there's no need for it in NT/W2K.
> >
> [...]
> Actually, any NT4.0 users may have several groups. So, why does the
> command "mkgroup" extract only the primary group of each user ?

Simply because it's written to do it that way. As I mentioned, it has
no additional effect to write them into /etc/groups so it's not
really on top of the TODO stack. But I wouldn't dislike a patch to
it...

> Even if the group file is modified manually to add complementary group
> to users, the
> command "Id -Gn" does not return all groups.

Hmm, do you have taken a newer snapshot? I have first added
supplementary group support on 1/6/2000. I have just proved it and
AFAICS it works as expected.

> To resolve this problem we intend to rewrite the "groups" command. Is
> there a best
> solution ?

You need not to patch anything. It will be supported by the next net
release anyway.

Corinna

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com