Hi Peter, On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:14:09PM +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Purdie [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: den 13 april 2016 13:05 > > To: Peter Kjellerstedt; Otavio Salvador > > Cc: OE Core ([email protected]) > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove > > user/group created by the package in clean* task" > > > > I am pretty frustrated with this thread. The reasons are perhaps not > > immediately obvious though. > > > > The issue is that there are only a limited number of people who > > actually dive in and try and fix some of the underlying "core > > architecture" bugs. There is what I believe to be a pretty good patch > > here which does fix real world issues which have been reported into the > > bugzilla (its related to at least two bug reports). As such it has been > > seen as a bugfix. Its now clear it does have some side effects which > > weren't envisaged, some causing issues for a small number of meta-oe > > recipes, the others breaking a companies internal code. > > > > Otavio wants it deferred to 2.2, Peter wants it abandoned entirely. > > > > If I revert this, Peter is then happy and has zero incentive to do > > anything further. The pressure is still on the reopened bugs to try and > > fix this somehow and falls back to the usual suspects. There is a real > > world usability problem there. > > Hold your horses. I definitely see the problem the change tried to > address as one that needs to be fixed, and I am already looking at > how to solve this properly (currently based on my second suggested > solution). However, I do not know if I can fix it in time for Krogoth. > Which is why I agree with Otavio that the change was introduced too > late in the process, especially as it causes breakage for existing > users.
As the author of that patch, I am responsible for that regression and would like to assist in fixing that particular problem. As you can see, I had no option to test your particular scenario as that recipe was not part of my oe-core "world" build test. RP has already sent a patch to fix the "cyrus-sasl" recipe which had some troubles with this change. > > In a single isolated case, fine, we'd figure a way through this. I > > think I'm so frustrated as we see this all the time. Making a change to > > the core architecture is hard and gets ever harder, then we wonder why > > we don't have contributors. Part of this is having so many different > > workflows and corner cases. > > > > I have pushed very hard to have more test cases, then its easier to > > determine if a patch causes regressions. Again though, few people are > > contributing to them outside the usual suspects. > > Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go about > adding a regression test that verifies the support for that multiple > recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a > specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not > know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience > either). Just want to let you know that I am interested in working together to fix this one. As per my understanding, you have a library and an application, which depends on that library. Both these packages creates the same user. At this point, a package manager (eg: smart) doesn't remove the users when we remove the package. However, I am not sure about the situation where a package manager removes the users added by a package when we remove it from the target device. In that case,wouldn't the removal of application, remove the user which the library depends on ? Best Regards, Maxin -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
