Down near the vmail setup, it says 'groupadd -g $uid vmail,' it should be groupmod and not groupadd...
Why?
Issuing the 'groupadd -d $uid vmail' command given on the HOWTO, would spit back an error saying 'group vmail already exists'. A baffled user might just skip this crucial step, as I almost did, and would receive less than expected results. If you were to change groupadd to groupmod (groupmod -d $uid vmail), it will work as expected, and I'm pretty sure this was the original intent (to write groupmod vs groupadd to the wiki).
If the expected behavior is to make a new user called "vmail" and the group "vmail" with the only member, the new user "vmail", your suggestion won't fix that.
Well, the intent of the command, I believe, is to set the gid of %vmail to the same uid of vmail, correct me if I'm mistaken, and the listed groupadd command won't do this, it will just say 'group already exists,' and groupmod -g will do this, if i'm not mistaken?
Well, the useradd command listed, (adduser -d /home/vmail -s /bin/false vmail) should create the group, right? I already had a vmail group because of another wiki, but i userdel vmail, groupdel vmail, and rm -rf'ed /home/vmail, so I wouldn't think the group would have existed, ergo I assume the adduser command listed creates it, which, as I previously said, will make any sortof group add to 'vmail,' just spit back group already exists, no?
Noooo . . . it's setup the way it is because there's nothing guaranteeing the group vmail already exists -- you said yourself *you* already had that group, because you had been following a *different document* that had set that up already. But users following this doc need the steps in the given order. Even if there is an error thrown (at some point in the future, let's suppose that the group is created by default through some other means), that doesn't invalidate the given instructions. GDP is not responsible for anyone who rushes through a doc and starts skipping steps; that's why we have what we have, in the given order. See "man useradd" and "man groupadd" for some rather obvious answers to your questions. ;)
But, I had issued groupdel vmail, and even checked /etc/group, and then re-groupdel'ed it and it said didn't exist, how is this possible? :x (I'm not saying I'm not wrong, I just am not the *most advanced* linux user out there.
(In reply to comment #7) > But, I had issued groupdel vmail, and even checked /etc/group, and then > re-groupdel'ed it and it said didn't exist, how is this possible? :x (I'm not > saying I'm not wrong, I just am not the *most advanced* linux user out there. > http://forums.gentoo.org is your friend.
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > But, I had issued groupdel vmail, and even checked /etc/group, and then > > re-groupdel'ed it and it said didn't exist, how is this possible? :x (I'm not > > saying I'm not wrong, I just am not the *most advanced* linux user out there. > > > > http://forums.gentoo.org is your friend. > Why would you direct me there? I just would like to know whether what I'm saying is logical or not, I mean, I removed the group, but it says it still exists? I don't see the issue with using bugs.gentoo.org, I was actually referred here by roger55 :p.
(In reply to comment #9) > Why would you direct me there? I just would like to know whether what I'm > saying is logical or not, I mean, I removed the group, but it says it still > exists? I don't see the issue with using bugs.gentoo.org, I was actually > referred here by roger55 :p. Because bugzilla is NOT A SUPPORT FORUM, thanks.
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > Why would you direct me there? I just would like to know whether what I'm > > saying is logical or not, I mean, I removed the group, but it says it still > > exists? I don't see the issue with using bugs.gentoo.org, I was actually > > referred here by roger55 :p. > > Because bugzilla is NOT A SUPPORT FORUM, thanks. > I wasn't requesting support, I truly thought this was an error in the docs, and I'm trying to find out why it's not?