On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:38:51PM -0700, Darren Spruell wrote:

quoted text
> On 10/26/07, Douglas A. Tutty  wrote:

> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 09:55:13AM -0700, Ted Unangst wrote:

> > > On 10/25/07, Douglas A. Tutty  wrote:

> > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:19:19AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> > > > > Well, there is no solution.  16 was chosen a lot of years ago as a

> > > > > reasonable amount of state to carry around, and that's the standard

> > > > > and we're probably going to stick with it.

> > > >

> > > > What, then, is the correct way to separate the project files of more

> > > > than 16 projects, where some users will need access to all of the

> > > > groups?

> > >

> > > read again:  there is no solution.

> > >

> >

> > There has to be _some_ solution but it doesn't have to revolve around

> > groups.

>

> Here's a long shot - it's crazy enough it might just work. How about a

> real project management application?

See, I said there was a solution, and hey, it will all fit on one box.
(or a pair for redundancy for those who need it).
Doug.