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 /etc/login.defs > > Of course one thing that makes this argument slightly invalid is that if > you DO have a /usr/share/factory/etc/login.defs, then this file *should* > be configured with the same boundary as systemd's built in defaults, so > there should be no problem in the context of bootstrapping /etc. > > Therefore, if this is the case, then the argument for not reading and > honouring /etc/login.defs if it exists is, IMO, invalid. > > Have I won Lennart? Are you now convinced that such a patch would be in > the same category as Zbigniew's sysusers reading /etc/sysusers.d/ patch > that already went in? :p
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. Configuring our own base bootstrap tools with /usr/share/factory/ + a tmpfiles snippet to copy the stuff over to /etc is a cyclic loop we just do not support, and which makes not much sense anyway. Bootstrap-/etc-population is intended for "broken" tools that cannot be fixed properly, not our own stuff, which does not need /etc populated. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel