> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Purdie <[email protected]> > Sent: den 12 maj 2026 21:49 > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <[email protected]>; openembedded- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/5] Add support for USERMOD_PARAM in > useradd.bbclass > > On Tue, 2026-05-12 at 21:04 +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt via > lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > This is my proposed solution for groupmems' lack of support for the > > --prefix option > > (https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16277), and the fact > > that groupmems will be removed in the next version of shadow. > > > > The first three commits make a little bit of clean-up to > > useradd.bbclass and then add the support for USERMOD_PARAM. These I > > would like to see backported to Wrynose. While technically it is a new > > feature, I hope this can be accepted (it should not affect anyone who > > does not actively start using it). It would make it a lot easier for us > > and others who are using GROUPMEMS_PARAM today (we have more than 300 > > recipes that will need to be updated) as it would then be possible to > > migrate the recipes over some time rather than having to do a flag day > > rewrite. > > I appreciate the patch series, thanks for doing that. I'm much less > happy that this is marked as "something we must backport" and then the
I did write "that I would like" and "I hope" so definitely not "must". > series starts with a patch mixing whitespace and "simplifications". I can split this if that is the only blocker for a backport so that what is needed for the two following commits remain, and the cleanup is left as a separate commit for master. However, ... > Whilst I appreciate it would make it easier for you, you're breaking > several different elements of the stable backport policies and hence > actually actively make it harder to make case to backport it. It > certainly doesn't make it easier for me, quite the opposite. I am aware of that this is a new feature, albeit one that should not affect anyone who are not actively trying to solve the problem with groupmems. It would certainly be easier for me if support for USERMOD_PARAM is backported, but we can make do without it as we can backport a version of useradd.bbclass into one of our own layers. Having it in OE-Core is mainly a way to help others who are in the same situation as us. What I would really appreciate though is to allow support for GROUPMEMS_PARAM (emulated using usermod) to remain on master until closer to feature freeze as otherwise we will have to resort to a flag day update of all our recipes that use GROUPMEMS_PARAM. I promise that I will send a patch that removes support for GROUPMEMS_PARAM in good time before the feature freeze. The sad part (as I realized while making these changes), is that groupmems (and therefore GROUPMEMS_PARAM) actually has a better API for what OE is doing, and allows for much better validation in perform_groupmems() than in perform_usermod(). And no, I am not arguing for keeping support for GROUPMEMS_PARAM, as that does not make any sense in the long run if upstream is removing the command. I just thought I'd mention it. > > Cheers, > > Richard //Peter
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#236914): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/236914 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/119284990/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
