ville.skytta@xxxxxx (Ville Skyttä) writes: >> > http://ensc.de/fedora/macros.fedora-usermgmt >> > >> > This should ease the creation of packages supporting both the plain >> > shadow-utils and the fedora-usermgmt methods. >> >> Something like that would be very beneificial, IMO, and should hopefully >> satisfy anyone unhappy with the current situation. > > If this stuff really must exist in the first place, the above is kind of > a step in the right direction. However, I'm not at all happy with the > build nor install time dependencies on fedora-usermgmt and I think they > can be easily avoided. I really do not understand the problems with the Requires: or BuildRequires: 1. We are speaking about packages for Fedora Extras; it is absolutely ok that a Fedora Extras package (build)requires another Fedora Extras package. 2. 'fedora-usermgmt' is only a very small package which does not add new dependencies. It behaves exactly like a plain 'useradd' without explicit activation. 3. Would it be really a problem to maintain another spec-file? Fedora Extras forces you already to maintain one spec-file per Fedora Core version. > Something like the below should work without any macro magic or unusual > dependencies. It assumes that fedora-{user,group}add would be modified > to be command line compatible with the normal useradd/groupadd. > > # Note lowest common dependency: no fedora-useradd or mgmt here > Requires(pre): /usr/sbin/useradd This would not work well with vanilla installations because you can not tell an installation order there. Therefore, 'fedora-usermgmt' must be a Requires(...): > %pre > f=$(test -x /usr/sbin/fedora-useradd && echo fedora-) > # fedora-useradd transforms 126 to another value according to local > # config and then passes the new value with -u to plain useradd, or > # if fedora-useradd is not installed, we obviously invoke plain > # useradd directly with -u 126 > /usr/sbin/${f}useradd -r -u 126 ... The '-u 126' would be wrong here because accordingly LSB you should not assign static uids in this range. > %pre > f=$(test -x /usr/sbin/fedora-useradd && echo fedora-) > # fedora-useradd grabs 126 from the environment, transforms it > # to another value according to local config and calls plain useradd > # using -u and the new value, or if fedora-useradd is not installed, > # plain useradd will be invoked without -u > FU_UID_HINT=126 /usr/sbin/${f}useradd -r ... # no -u in these args I really dislike such complicated scriptlets. They may appear simple but will cause mysterious failures (e.g. because of the bug[1] above). Enrico Footnotes: [1] the 'f=$(test -x /usr/sbin/fedora-useradd && echo fedora-)' will make the scriptlet (and install transaction) fail when fedora-usermgmt is not installed. Should be written as | f=$(test ! -x /usr/sbin/fedora-useradd || echo fedora-)
Attachment:
pgpN1ILbwskck.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
