BLFS User Group [Was Re: Inetutils]

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at
Tue Jun 13 11:29:26 PDT 2006

On 6/13/06, Craig Jackson <craigmjackson at> wrote:
> Is this something that has
> come up for in a discussion?  I don't mean to start a flame war
> between the BLFS and LFS teams :)  It seems like part of a basic setup
> to have a "users" group with an ID of 100.  If the LFS team does not
> agree, it could always be part of BLFS's "configuring for adding
> users" instructions.

Probably there could be a note in the BLFS instructions.
Unfortunately, groups are a bit of a sticky issue.  Some people would
not agree that there should be a common users group that all
unprivelaged users are a part of.  I think it is useful enough that it
should be mentioned.  On my system, I like to be in a common group
with the other users.  You can always set your permissions according
to your preference.

The problem you're having, though, isn't really related to have a
"users" group.  It's caused because you haven't defined any group.
The defaults for shadow from LFS say that any new user will default to
group 100 unless the group is specified.  There are some switches with
useradd that allow the group to be created from useradd, but I can't
recall them right now.

If the other BLFS editors agree, I'll add a note saying that creating
a new user will default to group 100, so you should create that.  And
maybe I'll say something about putting all your users in a common
group.  That should be intuitive to anyone with a decent *nix
background, though.


More information about the blfs-support mailing list