On 5/23/19 7:08 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > Given that your initial post does specifically state that you are > patching the package in order to allow it, I will assume that nothing I > just said about upstream's intentions is remotely surprising to you -- > you would have to know that it's enforced in libmisc/chkname.c in order > to patch it, soooo... may I ask why you posted to the list asking why it > is not allowed "in Arch Linux", rather than "in the upstream, > distribution-agnostic shadow-maint software"? > > It seems almost disingenuous to put it that way, and you are the person > who would know better than most arch-general readers that it's not > actually something Arch Linux is doing. Why be misleading? It will only > result in people having no idea what you are talking about, assuming > your public statements about this being some form of Arch Linux > configuration are accurate, and giving you uninformed answers as a > result. This is hardly conducive to your desired goal to find out why. Just wanted to clarify -- I did not think you were being deliberately misleading here. It just seemed like an oversight, possibly assuming other readers also know exactly how the shadow package is constructed, and I wish to highlight the importance of making sure that questions are asked with enough background to allow others to grok what is actually going on. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
