[Nut-upsdev] configure: added --with-group

[Arjen de Korte]

Peter Selinger wrote:

>>> - if neither --with-user, nor --with-group are specified, we apply the
>>> defaults "nobody" and "nogroup" (or whatever are sane defaults)
>> Does POSIX (or another standard) specify some minimum set of user and
>> group names that must exist and could be used for this purpose? My
>> Linux box has a "nobody" user and group, but no "nogroup". 

Not that I know of, but the group "nobody" exists on my Linux system as
well, so that may be a better default.

[...]

>> As far as I know, the group is not used for anything except ownership
>> of USB devices so far, so perhaps we *could* make specifying it
>> optional.
> 
> More specifically, what I mean is: using the username as a group name
> has not lead to any problems so far except in strange cases. By making
> it configurable, we have taken care of the strange cases. Perhaps this
> leaves us free to continue using the old behavior as a default. 

So far there was not much chance for any strange behavior, since we have
started installing these scripts by default only recently. People
strictly following the INSTALL file, would not have been surprised by
using RUN_AS_USER as the name of a group instead. It's the people that
are *not* following these instructions to the letter that I'm worried
about. I'd rather have configure spit out an error message if they
forget to configure a group (remembering them that they need to do
something), rather than defaulting to the username. Especially since the
groupname is now actually used within NUT, instead of an example for
defining the permissions on devices, directories and files (where the
use of a NUT group was optional so far).

Best regards, Arjen