On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:33 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Mike McGrath wrote: > > Rex Dieter wrote: > > >> You're now the second person on related threads to claim real problems > >> exist. I'm curious, what are they? > > > I'll give you 3 > > 1) It doesn't work in epel > > 2) It ties us to something proprietary. No one else uses it, even dists > > that are downstream from us remove it, which is embarrassing if nothing > > else. > > 3) It's not universal, only some packages use it, some don't. So only > > some of the use cases for some of the packages are covered. > > OK, I guess my definition of "real problems" is different than yours. > Mine is: it's broken and doesn't work. > > Other than 1 (which can potentially be fixed/worked-around), the rest > are comments around the idea that fedora-usermgmt may not be the *ideal* > solution. And I agree it's not ideal. > > What I disagree with is the notion that fedora-usermnmt be rejected > before a better, working solution is ready to take its place(1). > I agree 100%. Peter Vrabec pvrabec@xxx seems to be the shadow-utils maintainer. If we really want to get the functionality into shadow-utils so we don't have to do it in a separate package, someone needs to get him to comment on: 1) Can we implement this in shadow-utils 2) If not, does he have a suggestion for dealing with expanding the set of static userids? -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
