Thank you Michał, much appreciated.
I've in the meantime to make progress on my side picked something which
was not in use in ::gentoo, so I can move forward, but it's be really
good to have the below feature anyway going forward.
On 2019/08/01 22:47, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 2019-08-01 at 21:04 +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote:
Hi,
Looking at the new eclasses for acct-user and acct-group.
These enforce that a group and user id should be set.
This is not a requirement for enewuser nor enewgroup.
As a further discrepancy, the user eclass requires >0 for the IDs,
whereas the checks in acct-user and acct-group is for >= 0.
Would it be ok to suggest that we allow -1 (or 0, but that could be
confused with the root user/group) in acct-user and acct-group to
specify "no specific id, please allocate dynamically"?
Use case: I'm building some experimental packages in an overlay, and I
really don't care what the UID and GID values are, I just need something
unique on the host I can use to avoid running the service as root.
Guessing I could just manually useradd -r but then again ... if I do
later submit these into the main tree (or other packages) then it
becomes a problem, and maintaining acct-{user,group}/* outside of main
tree could conflict with main tree at a later stage ... either way,
having some way to say "I honestly don't care, just give me a random
number" is probably a good thing.
I'll look into adding support for '-1' in a few days. However, I'm
going to add QA checks to prevent it from getting into ::gentoo first.
Assuming I understand that correctly, you're happy with -1 values going
into overlays, but not into ::gentoo?
Would you mind to explain the motivation for that?
I'm also happy to take a whack at generating a patch series for you for
the eclasses themselves (not familiar with the QA check code yet),
including sorting out the >0 vs >=0 discrepancy, if you're happy with that?
Kind Regards,
Jaco
