On Thu, 24.07.14 13:32, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
I guess my main concern still remains that uid range settings for system
users would now be in two places - one used by sysusers and another by
adduser (I now accept your argument that the other two places are
different
On Wed, 23.07.14 20:50, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 07:31:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
[snip]
Now, this alone wouldn't provide compatibility with the dreaded
login.defs file. For that we'd then employ a postinst script that
On Wed, 23.07.14 21:22, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
Does this make sense?
To be frank, I really don't think it does make much sense at all. I
mean, something which is currently configured in one place and then
used
Well, no, it's not the same setting that is configured at
Lennart Poettering wrote on 24/07/14 11:59:
...
snip
...
I am pretty sure you will find people who will defend some of this
non-sense, but honestly, this is all is stuff that shouldn't exist.
OK, that was a fairly convincing message! Many thanks for taking the
time and being so explicit.
I
Colin Guthrie wrote on 24/07/14 13:32:
If direct
parsing is NAKed perhaps it could just shell out to a
systemd-sysusers-getnewuserdetails command which spat out a uid:gid pair
(and took an optional --system argument), that way the parsing logic
only needs to live in one place.
This bit, of
Am 22.07.2014 22:47, schrieb Colin Walters:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014, at 09:43 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I am pretty strongly against this. Making this administrator
configurable apepars very wrong, this really should be a decision for
the distribution vendor, and that's it.
You list one
'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 23/07/14 11:29 did gyre and gimble:
If there was a /usr/share/factory/etc/login.defs with e.g. 500 boundary
point, then this file would presumably be copied in by tmpfiles to
populate /etc/login.defs
Of course one thing that makes this argument slightly
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Colin Guthrie gm...@colin.guthr.ie wrote:
'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 23/07/14 11:29 did gyre and gimble:
If there was a /usr/share/factory/etc/login.defs with e.g. 500 boundary
point, then this file would presumably be copied in by tmpfiles to
populate
Kay Sievers wrote on 23/07/14 12:36:
I don't see the rather artificially constructed case of an
/usr/share/factory/etc/login.defs + tmpfiles snippet to copy to /etc
as a valid argument for reading login.defs.
Well, my point was that one of Lennart's original arguments for NOT
reading
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Colin Guthrie gm...@colin.guthr.ie wrote:
Kay Sievers wrote on 23/07/14 12:36:
I don't see the rather artificially constructed case of an
/usr/share/factory/etc/login.defs + tmpfiles snippet to copy to /etc
as a valid argument for reading login.defs.
Well, my
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:29:20AM +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
'Twas brillig, and Colin Walters at 22/07/14 21:47 did gyre and gimble:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014, at 09:43 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I am pretty strongly against this. Making this administrator
configurable apepars very wrong,
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 04:55:59PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
Anyway, I think that /etc/login.defs support is made out to
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 05:30:53PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 04:55:59PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl
On Tue, 22.07.14 18:35, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 22/07/14 12:10 did gyre and gimble:
I guess it's OK to do this kind of user lookup stuff from the journal
code (i.e. server_fix_perms())?
Hmm, yuck. Actually it is really
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 07:31:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
[snip]
Now, this alone wouldn't provide compatibility with the dreaded
login.defs file. For that we'd then employ a postinst script that reads
the range from the file, and then automatically generates a sysuers.d
drop-in or
On Mon, 21.07.14 23:44, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 21/07/14 23:28 did gyre and gimble:
On Mon, 21.07.14 15:43, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
While I appreciate sysusers is intended primarily for bootstrapping
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014, at 09:43 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I am pretty strongly against this. Making this administrator
configurable apepars very wrong, this really should be a decision for
the distribution vendor, and that's it.
You list one concern below, are there others?
We shouldn't
'Twas brillig, and Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek at 21/07/14 03:16 did
gyre and gimble:
I agree. Not reading /etc/login.defs makes the tool troublesome for
existing installations.
I've experienced a related problem, where coredumps would not be
visible for my user on a Fedora machine which has
On Sun, 20.07.14 22:31, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
Hi,
We're still using 500 as our [UG]ID_MIN in /etc/login.defs, but I'm
looking to change that to be more in line with what everyone else seems
to do.
One thing I found while looking at the sysusers code was that the
On Sun, 20.07.14 22:38, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 20/07/14 22:31 did gyre and gimble:
Those defaults could be set from a compile time check of
login.defs too.
FWIW, at least here, /etc/login.defs is not readable by regular users so
On Mon, 21.07.14 04:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
I can't really think of any reason as to why this would genuinely help,
but then I can't think why a regular user.
Not a big deal in this case really tho' - I think the original argument
still stands.
I
On Mon, 21.07.14 13:11, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
That said, it's also not inconceivable that the login.defs is updated
but user accounts still exist that are in the 500-1000 range. So perhaps
we should consider adding the same kind of heuristics for handling the
500-1000
On Mon, 21.07.14 15:43, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
While I appreciate sysusers is intended primarily for bootstrapping
/etc, I guess the general consensus is to move package pre/post scripts
over to use sysusers instead anyway. Thus the tool should really check
'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 21/07/14 23:28 did gyre and gimble:
On Mon, 21.07.14 15:43, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
While I appreciate sysusers is intended primarily for bootstrapping
/etc, I guess the general consensus is to move package pre/post scripts
'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 20/07/14 22:31 did gyre and gimble:
Those defaults could be set from a compile time check of
login.defs too.
FWIW, at least here, /etc/login.defs is not readable by regular users so
any build system that builds as non-root won't even get those defaults
Am 20.07.2014 23:38, schrieb Colin Guthrie:
'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 20/07/14 22:31 did gyre and gimble:
Those defaults could be set from a compile time check of
login.defs too.
FWIW, at least here, /etc/login.defs is not readable by regular users so
any build system that builds
'Twas brillig, and Reindl Harald at 20/07/14 22:52 did gyre and gimble:
Am 20.07.2014 23:38, schrieb Colin Guthrie:
'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 20/07/14 22:31 did gyre and gimble:
Those defaults could be set from a compile time check of
login.defs too.
FWIW, at least here,
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:30:20PM +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
'Twas brillig, and Reindl Harald at 20/07/14 22:52 did gyre and gimble:
Am 20.07.2014 23:38, schrieb Colin Guthrie:
'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 20/07/14 22:31 did gyre and gimble:
Those defaults could be set from a
28 matches
Mail list logo
