> bugs.michael@xxxxxxx said: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:52:17 +0100, Christian.Iseli@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > bugs.michael@xxxxxxx said: > > > A link in the dependency chain. A way to pull in automatically a package > > > which (assuming we stick to the current mechanism implemented by Enrico) > > > provides the 'setup(fedora-usermgmt)' capability and hence the defaults > > > chosen by the admin. > > > > I still fail to see how that helps for Core packages. > > Now you create another loop. Huh ? That's the same ol' loop... > We don't try to modify the behaviour of Core functionality (e.g. useradd) > from the outside (read: Fedora Extras). Yes you do. Automatically adding a user to the system is a functionnality that is provided by FC. Some admins do not like the way it works and provide a replacement called fedora-usermgmt. But instead of letting the admin decide which method he prefers, you try to convince all FE packagers they should use this replacement. (Moreover, even if the admin decides he likes the replacement, it won't help him any with the FC packages because they won't use the replacement. But let's forget about this for an instant) What I proposed is to come up with a scheme that actually let the admin choose, and not require to convince all FE packagers they should change their packages. I thought that a fedora-usermgmt package that fully replaces shadow-utils would work. You seem to think it can't work... > Unless you want to push the entire > implementation directly into shadow-utils, making it completely > transparent and adding a configure option to the installer front-ends. ;) Why not ? That would probably be the best solution in the end... (and stop this thread too :) ) -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
