On 1/19/20 9:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Fantasy scenarios again. I'm not going to debunk a system that you just
>> thought up and that has never existed. Why don't you find one person who
>> actually does this, and see if it bothers him if we create a home
>> directory under /home where it belongs?
>
> Uh, I'm pretty confident that nothing in my /home is owned by a UID
> under 1000, or has an ACL referencing such a UID. I just checked with
> myself and I don't want you creating directories in /home.
This is retarded, stop wasting my time.
>>>
>>> I mean, would it kill you to just talk to QA first?
>>
>> I've already got responses from two QA members. This thread is pretty
>> hard to miss.
>
> Well, then why go posting stuff like "guess we'll be triggering a
> warning after all?"
If these two things are logically connected, I don't see it.
>
>> I'm working on a patch for the install-qa-check.d check
>> and I'm sure I'll get more when I post it.
>
> Are you just allowing it to not create the directory, or are we
> considering patching it to allow creating stuff under /home? It would
> seem that the policy would also need updating in that case, but
> probably not the former.
>
The patch will make an exception for acct-user packages only; for /home,
/home/${PN}, and /home/${PN}/.keep*. In other words, it makes things
work exactly how they did before the GLEP81 eclass started keepdir'ing
the home directory.
