mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ("Mike McGrath") writes:
>> I do not understand the sense of this discussion: when a scriptlet
>> uses a program, a corresponding Requires(...) MUST exist for this
>> program. There exist exceptions (e.g. for generating cache-files) but
>> none of them apply here.
>
> For me the discussion isn't about requires or not, its about
> fedora-usermgmt. I mean, up to all this time we've been using useradd
> (provided by shadow-utils). The main purpose of this thread was to
> bring about discussion before the FESCo takes a look at it. Which
> will be in a few weeks. I'm still not convinced that:
>
> A) there is a problem that needs solving
When FE packages create users, this happens dynamically and the users
will get different uids at every package installation and on different
machines.
Sharing files between such machines on a common filesystem will be very
difficulty.
> B) that this solved that problem.
I think it was explained several times in this thread how the problem is
solved by fedora-usermgmt
>> We are speaking about Fedora Extras where 'Requires: fedora-usermgmt'
>> can be fulfilled. This is a very minimal and non intrusive package
>> without bad (technical) sideeffects.
>
> Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. I've never run into a
> UID issue regarding system users on any of my machines. I'm not
> saying they can't, but how often does it happen to the rest of us out
> there?
1. The exact count of affected users does not matter; we are not driven
by commercial aspects where the biggest marketshare wins. When a
problem can be solved for 0.01% of the users without affecting the
other 99.99%, it should be solved.
2. Using fedora-usermgmt is optional, not a requirement.
3. nobody will be hurted; fedora-usermgmt is minimal, non-intrusive and
without bad technical sideeffects
Enrico
Attachment:
pgpiyaszwr0Ro.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
