On 01/29/2017 06:34 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> Our syntax for package names is more restrictive than what POSIX
> allows for a portable user name. Therefore, there could be user names
> that are not representable. Have you checked if all user and group
> names currently in use (at least in the main tree) also follow the
> rules for package names? IIRC, at some point in time we had names
> starting with "_" (which is ugly, but would be allowed as a package
> name) and some "foo-1" type names (which are not allowed).
There's already a variable SYS_USER_NAME=${PN}. If it turns out there
are unrepresentable names, we can change that to a default value and let
people change it in the ebuild. The main benefit of having the username
be the package name is that it prevents duplicates without any
additional code or convention.
> What about duplicates turning up in searches for packages? For example,
> "emerge portage" won't work any more because there would be the ones
> in sys-group and sys-user too.
Isn't that why we have categories in the first place?
