On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 01:22:22AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > I don't think so. Either way, the actual implementation is going to be a call to > systemd-sysusers. But the rpm-internal approach is quite different in how the > call is constructed from the macro-based approach, so the failure modes are > likely to be different. If were to switch to the macro-based approach > temporarily, we'd create quite a lot of churn and _different_ failure modes. So > I think that if we're switching to sysusers as the implementation, we should go > for the intended final approach immediately. My thinking was that the failure modes would then be limited to the switch to systemd-sysusers only so we wouldn't have to debug two new implementations (systemd-sysusers and RPM's integration) but just one (systemd-sysusers). That said, having slept on it, I agree that such a two-staged approach would just make things needlessly more chaotic. Just switching the whole thing as proposed is going to be simpler, yup :) -- Michal Domonkos / RPM dev team / Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
