samba - Feb 2006 - specifying groups: @ vs. +

In *non-NIS* environments: is there *any* difference in specifying 
@mygroup vs. +mygroup in smb.conf?

smb.conf(5) from 3.0.21c says:

   A  name  starting with a '@' is interpreted as an NIS net-
   group first (if your system supports NIS), and then  as  a
   UNIX  group  if the name was not found in the NIS netgroup
   database.

   A name starting with '+' is interpreted only by looking in
   the  UNIX  group  database.

which suggests that they should work equally in non-NIS environments. 
Still, to double-check: is there any (even slight) overhead imposed by 
one vs. the other?


-TL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thomas Limoncelli wrote:
> which suggests that they should work equally in non-NIS 
> environments. Still, to double-check: is there any
> (even slight) overhead imposed by one vs. the other?
If not compiled with netgroup support, there is a
only the overhead of a single function call which
immediately returns.





cheers, jerry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEAzKtIR7qMdg1EfYRAgTeAKC1txa68VtnfP8iXKz2FKlegHPpuwCdEa4e
+Id3f8lVjLLweO2e/9+h7+Y=dcV/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----