Christian.Iseli@xxxxxxxx writes: > I think we are still not talking exactly about the same thing... > > Let me try to rephrase: > 1. there are packages (both in FC and FE) that need to create UIDs > 2. some admins would like to have those UIDs created in a > predictable/defined way > 3. you propose an add-on/wrapper package that allows to do this, but > it is non-transparent: packages that want to use your mechanism > must have a Require for fedora-adduser. Thus the packager makes > the decision, not the admin > 4. when an admin decides to use your mechanism, part of the packages > installed will still not be right because all FC and some FE > packages do not have the Require mentioned in step 3, and some > packagers adamantly refuse to add it > 5. no consensus is emerging that point 3 is the right thing to do > > What I think some other persons and I are proposing is that you change > the fedora-usermgmt package to be a complete, transparent replacement > for useradd (shadow-utils package). That way, when an admin decides > to install your package, he knows all the packages he later installs > will obey the policy he decided to apply when he configured the > necessary bits in your package. Packagers then no longer need to > worry whether to Require useradd or fedora-useradd. I think that > would make everyone happy... (maybe famous last words too :-) ) Ok, I understand your suggestion so, that: * 'fedora-usermgmt' gets the following headers: |+ Provides: shadow-utils | ... |- Requires: shadow-utils |+ Requires: /usr/sbin/useradd * every package which creates users will contain something like | Requires(pre): shadow-utils | ... | %pre | if test -x /usr/sbin/fedora-useradd; then | /usr/sbin/fedora-useradd ... | else | /usr/sbin/useradd ... | fi I could live with it. Enrico
Attachment:
pgpg16Us2OeBO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
