Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Please, stop the FUD about problems without naming them!
>>
> Please see the archives of this thread, not just my comments but
> others as well.
I found exactly one problem report in this thread. This one is caused by
buggy documentation.
> Ignoring the shortcomings of fedora-usermgmt won't make it go away.
>
> 1) Doesn't work in any other distro other than fedora
fedora-usermgmt operates at the packaging-level (required only by
%scripts, not at runtime). Since spec files are distribution specific,
why should I spend much effort into thoughts about other distributions?
And btw, why do you think that fedora-usermgmt does not work in any
other distribution? At least Mandriva and RHEL5 seem to provide the
required environment.
> 2) Only solves a small problem for a few packages since not all
> packages use it
chicken-egg problem
> 3) Its proprietary.
... like ... anaconda?
> 4) Very few people use it
chicken-egg problem
> 5) Its been controversial ever since its inception (otherwise it'd be
> mandatory by now)
vim vs. emacs are controversial too... I do not see a problem there
> 6) Most sysadmins solve this problem on their own using well defined,
> tested tools
most things can be solved in multiple ways... I do not see a problem
there
> 7) Its author doesn't seem to want to send it upstream to shadow-utils
> for reasons unknown
There was no constructive criticism which showed technical problems or
ways how to enhance/generalize fedora-usermgmt.
One goal of fedora-usermgmt (support for creating users in LDAP instead
of /etc/shadow) does not seem solvable by shadow-utils patches either.
> 8) It hasn't gained any other foothold besides fedora
... like ... anaconda?
> 9) Its use isn't easy. Just in the last two days this thread and the
> EPEL thread have found people using it incorrectly or having it create
> UID's in an unpredictable fashion, and these are smart people.
yes; there is a bug in the documentation. This can/will be solved. In
the meantime, use
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageUserCreation
>>> Have you contacted the packager?
>>
>> about what?
>>
> About making this transparent to us. I actually suggested a way for
> all parties involved to be happy but for some reason you're ignoring
> it.
I just do not have enough time to write patches (without a good reason)
which are replacing a working and eixsting solution. I am wasting enough
time in this and previous threads.
But ok... I will take a look at shadow-utils and see what there can be
done...
Enrico
--
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
