Closed #2816 as completed via ad0eb9a461bce444271d9cf18748e8de821a8960.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2816#event-12352560560
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
On a related note, we should probably also generate a group require on a case
like this:
`u cyrus76:mail"Cyrus IMAP Server" /var/lib/imap
/sbin/nologin`
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Supporting 'm' would be nice of course. It was left out of the initial
implementation due to lack of time/energy to think about how to properly
implement it, rather than a "never" decision.
The implicit user/group creation is indeed something that would cause problems
when an explicit entry
Should the `m` lines generate user()/group() requires?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2816#issuecomment-1855994282
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Does it make sense to add support for 'm' lines in sysusers config files? This
would mean the following changes:
- add a provides for every `m` line, e.g. "group-member(groupname) =
base64_line"
- feed all such provides to systemd_sysusers tool (after all the user/group
lines)
The sysusers.sh
