Your message dated Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:25:37 +0100
with message-id
<q3fmorsyqldzp4zpjz6bbpwmfokqijz5gjj7cgrafxfbvxz54z@7xhbrnhoydgw>
and subject line Re: #1086225: please consider giving a dedicated exit value
for "invalid user name"
has caused the Debian Bug report #1086225,
regarding please consider giving a dedicated exit value for "invalid user name"
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1086225: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1086225
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: passwd
Version: 1:4.16.0-4
Severity: wishlist
File: /usr/sbin/useradd
Tags: upstream
Hi,
recently, useradd has grown funcitonality to check user names for
validity, see #1074306. This kind of clashes with adduser doing the same
thing, and has made testing adduser a bit harder. But still, the efforts
of staying sane upsetream-wise and close to upstream Debian-wise are
appreciated.
I would like to have adduser give more clear error messages like "the
user name is fine with adduser but useradd doesnt like it", and that
would be way easier if useradd's error message "invaid user name" woud
be backed with an appropriate, exclusive exit code.
I understand that this is unlikely to show up in useradd next week, so I
will be tweaking adduser's tests to handle those failures more
graefully, but I have just commented the tests so that we can re-enable
them once there is a more reliable method to detect this kind of useradd
error programatically. Please keep this bug report posted about your and
upstream's decisions.
Greetings
Marc
-- System Information:
Debian Release: trixie/sid
APT prefers stable-security
APT policy: (500, 'stable-security'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 6.11.4-amd64 (SMP w/12 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
Versions of packages passwd depends on:
ii base-passwd 3.6.5
ii libacl1 2.3.2-2
ii libattr1 1:2.5.2-2
ii libaudit1 1:4.0.1-1
ii libbsd0 0.12.2-2
ii libc6 2.40-3
ii libcrypt1 1:4.4.36-5
ii libpam-modules 1.5.3-7
ii libpam0g 1.5.3-7
ii libselinux1 3.7-3
ii libsemanage2 3.7-2
ii login.defs 1:4.16.0-4
Versions of packages passwd recommends:
ii sensible-utils 0.0.24
passwd suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: shadow
Source-Version: 1:4.17-1
Upstream implemented this.
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Pkg-shadow-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-shadow-devel
