From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Schiffer Subject: Re: [patch] nsswitch.conf.5: clarify the "notfound" status Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:17:06 +0200 Message-ID: <4F755DF2.3090906@redhat.com> References: <4F735800.6040807@redhat.com> <4F737004.9060500@proseconsulting.co.uk> <4F74D4B6.7040701@proseconsulting.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Cc: Mark R Bannister , linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Hello guys, thanks for looking into this. I am adding some notes below: On 03/30/2012 01:27 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Mark R Bannister > wrote: >> On 29/03/2012 19:34, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Mark R Bannister >>> wrote: >>>> On 28/03/2012 19:27, Peter Schiffer wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I am suggesting the following update of the "notfound" status on the >>>>> nsswitch.conf.5 man page. I am not 100% sure that this is the correct >>>>> place >>>>> where this information on the man page should be placed. Any comments >>>>> are >>>>> welcome. >>>>> >>>> Hi Peter, >>>> >>>> I did a rewrite of the nsswitch.conf man page in October last year: >>>> >>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.man/2366/match=nsswitch+conf >>>> >>>> I'm still waiting for Michael to incorporate these changes. May I >>>> suggest >>>> you send in a patch that is applied against this? I would also suggest >>>> that >>>> if you're going to make reference to "initgroups" you'll need to add some >>>> further description somewhere that explains what this is and when you >>>> would >>>> use it. >>> Looking a little deeper at this, I'd like another set of eyes. Mark, >>> would you be able to review Peter's patch? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Michael >>> >> I can't find this comment in glibc myself, there's nothing to this effect in >> grp/initgroups.c ? > Follow Peter's URL. > >> I've tested on a build with glibc 2.5 - admittedly not the latest version >> but it does feature the initgroups functionality - and I am not witnessing >> this behaviour. My configuration file has no initgroups line, and this >> entry: >> >> group: db [NOTFOUND=return] files >> >> ...always returns as expected if my /var/db/group.db file does not contain >> the group entry that I am searching for. >> >> So I don't concur with the suggested change ... The result is always as expected, the added note should clarify how the search is done. Important example would be like this: group: files [!NOTFOUND=return] XXXXXX what means, according to the current text in the man page, that if the result from "files" is either SUCCESS, UNAVAIL or TRYAGAIN, then, it should be returned. Well, it is, but the XXXXXX is also _always_ searched. Without the suggested note, it can be confusing while testing or setting up, also, if the XXXXXX is some remote service, this can create some hard to find delays. Thanks, peter > It looks like the change only arrived in glibc 2.14. Would you be able > to take a look there? > > Thanks, > > Michael > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html