>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 15 Dec 2015 15:56, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> ESR's case study about the password file format seems to disagree: >> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch05s01.html#id2901332
> because you cited it, i read it anyways. that document is about how text > formats should be preferred over binary formats because they do not require > custom tools to modify/update, and because it's easier for binary formats > to screw themselves over from a portability/extensible pov. it does not > champion the passwd format all by itself, and even says that it's a bit > rigid, and you should consider tagged formats if you want something more. > which we do. > see also the example i posted to Alec as why the format is hostile to devs > whereas my simple RST proposal has none of these issues. Whatever the format will be, the more important question is where this would be implemented: - In the package manager, with user and group definition in profiles. This seems to be what GLEP 27 suggests, and as far as I can see, it would require an EAPI bump. Certainly doable, but last time we bumped profiles to a new EAPI we had a rather long transition period. - In user.eclass, which could be extended to use the EUSERS and EGROUPS variables defined in ebuilds. The problem is, where would one store the user and group definitions then? Profiles cannot be accessed from an eclass. Ulrich
pgpygJDBAnbgK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
