Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
2010/5/23 jhell jh...@dataix.net: That shouldn't actually be to hard. If a utility like the three main upgrade tools that are being used the most right now would export a variable for say UPGRADING=yes then the uninstall script could check against that to decide whether or not the port is being removed or upgraded and make the proper decision while alerting the admin to whats going on. Folks, May be is' better to add another make target, called update, which would invoke deinstall, followed by reinstall? This would encapsulate the mechanism inside port.mk. Alexander Churanov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On May 24, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Alexander Churanov wrote: 2010/5/23 jhell jh...@dataix.net: That shouldn't actually be to hard. If a utility like the three main upgrade tools that are being used the most right now would export a variable for say UPGRADING=yes then the uninstall script could check against that to decide whether or not the port is being removed or upgraded and make the proper decision while alerting the admin to whats going on. Folks, May be is' better to add another make target, called update, which would invoke deinstall, followed by reinstall? This would encapsulate the mechanism inside port.mk. I'm going to have toe disagree with you on this. Using pkg_install with the appropriate install/deinstall scripts would better solve the installation and deletion scenarios properly (especially because adding code like this to port.mk would be haphazard in cases where you need to specify a specific DESTDIR, PREFIX, etc). Thanks, -Garrett___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23/05/2010 02:50:00, Ade Lovett wrote: On May 22, 2010, at 16:39 , Anonymous wrote: Such unused entries in passwd add clutter. It in turn makes managing users more complex. You have to remember which users are created by you and which ones are created by ports. Irrespective of the UID/GID stuff mentioned elsewhere, merely go through the ports tree and add (or append) (created by ports) to the GECOS field of any such created users. OpenBSD has a convention that all system user accounts start with a '_' character. There are a few accounts in UIDs that have adopted that, but no great stampede to adopt the idea despite most people agreeing with it. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkv4xFkACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxtUgCgh3ulQ2NBlHrFJIMWSb0eQYnc lhEAn2J9Fx+gpzv7Z28pL3VS8sv9rBDw =GACU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23/05/2010 04:47:49, jhell wrote: But if a port can install a user there is no reason that it can not uninstall a user via pw(8) that is available from bsd.commands.mk after checking a recorded md5(1) sum that it could create upon installation for the output of pw usershow/groupshow UID/GID. The trick would be to teach the ports how to tell if a port was being deleted for good, when trashing the user would be appropriate, or if the port was being deleted as part of the process of upgrading it, when you'ld want to keep the user. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkv4xPcACgkQ8Mjk52CukIyoCwCdERkAVk19Iy0el1EpR46GlKSo b6UAnAuVqhInDCfnAqw77mP5UrKKAYgK =17k9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:21:35 -0400 jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote: You being the originator of the thread called Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation which implies to me that you had a problem with users left behind on a system am I correct ? No, and the OP and I have different names and email addresses. If you really do not care about them after suggestions have been made in either point that would help with the above subject line then what is the original intention of your email ? why did you even write it ? I didn't ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:57:36 +0400 Anonymous swel...@gmail.com wrote: You don't have to remember, just look at the UID/GID values, ordinary users start at 1001, ports create UIDs 1000. You're presuming non-ordinary users are created only by ports framework. That's not always the case. I may want for example a separate user for telnetd to broadcast ascii movies or youterm sessions. ;) This has no relevance, we're talking about users that were previously created by ports and left behind after port deletions. This appears to refer to an admin confusing a normal user with a system user that's still in use by a port, so I don't see the relevance. No. It's about conflict: system user created by admin and system user created by port happen to have same username. pw and adduser wont let you add usernames that already exist. I've no idea whether pwd_mkdb allows duplicates usernames with different UIDs, I've never tried it, but if you create users that way without performing a check, you deserve what you get. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 23 May 2010 02:02, Matthew Seaman wrote: In Message-Id: 4bf8c4f8.9090...@infracaninophile.co.uk On 23/05/2010 04:47:49, jhell wrote: But if a port can install a user there is no reason that it can not uninstall a user via pw(8) that is available from bsd.commands.mk after checking a recorded md5(1) sum that it could create upon installation for the output of pw usershow/groupshow UID/GID. The trick would be to teach the ports how to tell if a port was being deleted for good, when trashing the user would be appropriate, or if the port was being deleted as part of the process of upgrading it, when you'ld want to keep the user. That shouldn't actually be to hard. If a utility like the three main upgrade tools that are being used the most right now would export a variable for say UPGRADING=yes then the uninstall script could check against that to decide whether or not the port is being removed or upgraded and make the proper decision while alerting the admin to whats going on. Regards, - -- jhell -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL+VbIAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+6d0H/RzxsitENOuEiG1j9l6cucod taGMfoitDYEFe7umLAyx/qfcLVkxRoVKNcStXGdQYFmhgbs0U3LgRfeCroKHcgaG GQkojvJvHMq0bGPXkGyM5Uqk2duN59dJbWyRqlfAxAt1b9SDl6LkHzfi4Bb0CoZ6 6/+izQ5Nl0nDDGGwzou2uCqhJ20YTm9N+XD5pdvDPPdC208wCc+1IPRNlZbx1stM B4viIveIBNJei1ooNqH3qwzO/fdOpJhd09eZNncOGLKPguHNNmqa/UH0ftXIBykU 3edE+gP+bvnf0kYeFBofYJDrG7H6grAyRUoObcD42sROLoD9Wk/RTO/MXZ8ekjA= =6JuP -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
Hi-- On May 22, 2010, at 10:59 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote: OpenBSD has a convention that all system user accounts start with a '_' character. There are a few accounts in UIDs that have adopted that, but no great stampede to adopt the idea despite most people agreeing with it. That convention is being adopted by MacOS 10.6, also. It does make it easier for one to separate out processes invoked by a human from automated tasks in ps or top... Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On 05/23/10 09:24, jhell wrote: That shouldn't actually be to hard. If a utility like the three main upgrade tools that are being used the most right now would export a variable for say UPGRADING=yes then the uninstall script could check against that to decide whether or not the port is being removed or upgraded and make the proper decision while alerting the admin to whats going on. The previous author of portupgrade and I agreed on the following variables to be set in our tools: UPGRADE_TOOL=portmaster UPGRADE_PORT=name of port with version UPGRADE_PORT_VER=`echo $UPGRADE_PORT | sed 's#.*-\(.*\)#\1#'` The last 2 are not set if this is a new install. hth, Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On 05/21/2010 20:08, Garrett Cooper wrote: On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:23:18 +0100 Florent Thoumie f...@xbsd.org wrote: On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:11 AM, David DEMELIER demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I used pkgsrc for a while on NetBSD. I was used to the pkgsrc notifications about the users and groups leaves, when some ports are removed these leaves are not used anymore. e.g pulseaudio needs some users on the system. This was discussed in the following bug-report: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=108514 I think the proper solution is to create a +UGIDS file to be able to maintain a refcount, but the status quo isn't that bad. Personally I'd much prefer to keep them so ls -l, filemanagers etc can continue to use names rather than numbers for any files left behind. IMO the status quo is better than any solution that involves automated deletion. I agree by and large with RW, but it would be nice if there was an audit tool to do this check and suggest whether or not a group should be added or removed in general, regardless of whether or not a pkg/port was added or removed. Thanks, -Garrett find(1) is already used by periodic(1) through weekly_noid_enable which should probably be extended to also include weekly_nogid_enable and would ultimately alert you to users and groups that have gone missing due to a port removal. Having unused logins on a system is bad! and just for the case of mapping to uid/gid does not justify leaving them. uid gid printed in ls(1) output may be ugly as well but you can not log in with one of those and they should be handled in a way that is prompt to login removal. find / -nouser find / -nogroup and then after inspection add -delete -print. find / -empty Of course these can be combined to form a simple one line command but I will leave that as a exercise for the reader. Regards, -- jhell ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
2010/5/22 Garrett Cooper yanef...@gmail.com: On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:23:18 +0100 Florent Thoumie f...@xbsd.org wrote: On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:11 AM, David DEMELIER demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I used pkgsrc for a while on NetBSD. I was used to the pkgsrc notifications about the users and groups leaves, when some ports are removed these leaves are not used anymore. e.g pulseaudio needs some users on the system. This was discussed in the following bug-report: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=108514 I think the proper solution is to create a +UGIDS file to be able to maintain a refcount, but the status quo isn't that bad. Personally I'd much prefer to keep them so ls -l, filemanagers etc can continue to use names rather than numbers for any files left behind. IMO the status quo is better than any solution that involves automated deletion. I agree by and large with RW, but it would be nice if there was an audit tool to do this check and suggest whether or not a group should be added or removed in general, regardless of whether or not a pkg/port was added or removed. Thanks, -Garrett Yes, of course I would not have something that remove automatically without prompting the user. I just wanted something like : Warning : these users are no long used by the system, you can remove then safely user1, user2 etc Cheers. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:29:38 -0400 jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote: Having unused logins on a system is bad! Why? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On Sat, 22 May 2010 07:58:38 -0400 jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote: On 05/22/2010 07:08, RW wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:29:38 -0400 jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote: Having unused logins on a system is bad! Why? For one example: This opens up a point of possible access to the system in which its integrity could be jeopardized. What all the implications are of this is out of scope for this thread. These are unprivileged accounts without passwords - you need root privileges to use them. Nothing is going to be running under them or they wouldn't be candidates for removal in the first place. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On 05/22/2010 08:42, RW wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2010 07:58:38 -0400 jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote: On 05/22/2010 07:08, RW wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:29:38 -0400 jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote: Having unused logins on a system is bad! Why? For one example: This opens up a point of possible access to the system in which its integrity could be jeopardized. What all the implications are of this is out of scope for this thread. These are unprivileged accounts without passwords - you need root privileges to use them. Nothing is going to be running under them or they wouldn't be candidates for removal in the first place. Are we arguing the point that these should just be left or can we come to a point like I stated in the previous email that you so gracefully chopped out that stated: If they are to be left in the system a admin should be notified or they should be automatically removed upon package removal. This is more of a best practices case than what the implications of leaving users in the master.passwd are. -- jhell ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:42:53 -0400 jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote: Having unused logins on a system is bad! Why? For one example: This opens up a point of possible access to the system in which its integrity could be jeopardized. What all the implications are of this is out of scope for this thread. These are unprivileged accounts without passwords - you need root privileges to use them. Nothing is going to be running under them or they wouldn't be candidates for removal in the first place. Are we arguing the point that these should just be left or can we come to a point like I stated in the previous email that you so gracefully chopped out that stated: If they are to be left in the system a admin should be notified or they should be automatically removed upon package removal. If there are no security concerns, the rest is just a bike shed This is more of a best practices case than what the implications of leaving users in the master.passwd are. Why is it best practice? Why add extra complexity to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com writes: On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:42:53 -0400 jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote: This is more of a best practices case than what the implications of leaving users in the master.passwd are. Why is it best practice? Why add extra complexity to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist? Such unused entries in passwd add clutter. It in turn makes managing users more complex. You have to remember which users are created by you and which ones are created by ports. So, if you change home dir of some user there may be undesireble consequences. And only then security becomes a concern because port app may be run with privilegies that are higher than intended. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On Sun, 23 May 2010 03:39:53 +0400 Anonymous swel...@gmail.com wrote: RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com writes: On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:42:53 -0400 jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote: This is more of a best practices case than what the implications of leaving users in the master.passwd are. Why is it best practice? Why add extra complexity to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist? Such unused entries in passwd add clutter. It in turn makes managing users more complex. You have to remember which users are created by you and which ones are created by ports. You don't have to remember, just look at the UID/GID values, ordinary users start at 1001, ports create UIDs 1000. The base system alone creates 18 such users, if you have problems with this kind of thing a few stale uids are the least of your problems. So, if you change home dir of some user there may be undesireble consequences. And only then security becomes a concern because port app may be run with privilegies that are higher than intended. This appears to refer to an admin confusing a normal user with a system user that's still in use by a port, so I don't see the relevance. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On May 22, 2010, at 16:39 , Anonymous wrote: Such unused entries in passwd add clutter. It in turn makes managing users more complex. You have to remember which users are created by you and which ones are created by ports. Irrespective of the UID/GID stuff mentioned elsewhere, merely go through the ports tree and add (or append) (created by ports) to the GECOS field of any such created users. I'd like my shed to be white, for some definition of the sixty bazillion different whites out there, paint-wise. Meh. Hate painting. -aDe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On 05/22/2010 21:11, RW wrote: On Sun, 23 May 2010 03:39:53 +0400 Anonymous swel...@gmail.com wrote: RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com writes: On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:42:53 -0400 jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote: This is more of a best practices case than what the implications of leaving users in the master.passwd are. Why is it best practice? Why add extra complexity to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist? Such unused entries in passwd add clutter. It in turn makes managing users more complex. You have to remember which users are created by you and which ones are created by ports. You don't have to remember, just look at the UID/GID values, ordinary users start at 1001, ports create UIDs 1000. The base system alone creates 18 such users, if you have problems with this kind of thing a few stale uids are the least of your problems. So, if you change home dir of some user there may be undesireble consequences. And only then security becomes a concern because port app may be run with privilegies that are higher than intended. This appears to refer to an admin confusing a normal user with a system user that's still in use by a port, so I don't see the relevance. You being the originator of the thread called Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation which implies to me that you had a problem with users left behind on a system am I correct ? If so then why do you keep insisting on arguing a point that says you really do not care about left-overs on your system ? If you really do not care about them after suggestions have been made in either point that would help with the above subject line then what is the original intention of your email ? why did you even write it ? Here is some additional reading that might spark your interests in removing them or maybe not. http://tinyurl.com/36ww9k2 PS: SANSFIRE is coming to Baltimore, MD in June. R U Signed ^? -- jhell ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On 05/22/2010 21:50, Ade Lovett wrote: On May 22, 2010, at 16:39 , Anonymous wrote: Such unused entries in passwd add clutter. It in turn makes managing users more complex. You have to remember which users are created by you and which ones are created by ports. Irrespective of the UID/GID stuff mentioned elsewhere, merely go through the ports tree and add (or append) (created by ports) to the GECOS field of any such created users. I do like this idea, but with respects to such; storing when it was created and what created it like www/apache22 might be a little more useful to narrow these down. But if a port can install a user there is no reason that it can not uninstall a user via pw(8) that is available from bsd.commands.mk after checking a recorded md5(1) sum that it could create upon installation for the output of pw usershow/groupshow UID/GID. -- jhell ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com writes: On Sun, 23 May 2010 03:39:53 +0400 Anonymous swel...@gmail.com wrote: RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com writes: On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:42:53 -0400 jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote: This is more of a best practices case than what the implications of leaving users in the master.passwd are. Why is it best practice? Why add extra complexity to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist? Such unused entries in passwd add clutter. It in turn makes managing users more complex. You have to remember which users are created by you and which ones are created by ports. You don't have to remember, just look at the UID/GID values, ordinary users start at 1001, ports create UIDs 1000. You're presuming non-ordinary users are created only by ports framework. That's not always the case. I may want for example a separate user for telnetd to broadcast ascii movies or youterm sessions. ;) Besides, some ports do not create users by default but may use them if available, e.g. dns/dnsmasq dnsmasq user. This case is more like a bug, though. The base system alone creates 18 such users, if you have problems with this kind of thing a few stale uids are the least of your problems. So, if you change home dir of some user there may be undesireble consequences. And only then security becomes a concern because port app may be run with privilegies that are higher than intended. This appears to refer to an admin confusing a normal user with a system user that's still in use by a port, so I don't see the relevance. No. It's about conflict: system user created by admin and system user created by port happen to have same username. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
Hi, I used pkgsrc for a while on NetBSD. I was used to the pkgsrc notifications about the users and groups leaves, when some ports are removed these leaves are not used anymore. e.g pulseaudio needs some users on the system. Then the pkgsrc framework says to the user that are some users not used anymore and they could remove them safely. Ports has the lack of this kind of notification, that's why I would start writing a patch in the ports infrastructure, or maybe someone already proposed something else ? I apologize for my bad english. King regards. -- Demelier David ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:11 AM, David DEMELIER demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I used pkgsrc for a while on NetBSD. I was used to the pkgsrc notifications about the users and groups leaves, when some ports are removed these leaves are not used anymore. e.g pulseaudio needs some users on the system. Then the pkgsrc framework says to the user that are some users not used anymore and they could remove them safely. Ports has the lack of this kind of notification, that's why I would start writing a patch in the ports infrastructure, or maybe someone already proposed something else ? I apologize for my bad english. This was discussed in the following bug-report: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=108514 I think the proper solution is to create a +UGIDS file to be able to maintain a refcount, but the status quo isn't that bad. -- Florent Thoumie f...@freebsd.org FreeBSD Committer ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:23:18 +0100 Florent Thoumie f...@xbsd.org wrote: On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:11 AM, David DEMELIER demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I used pkgsrc for a while on NetBSD. I was used to the pkgsrc notifications about the users and groups leaves, when some ports are removed these leaves are not used anymore. e.g pulseaudio needs some users on the system. This was discussed in the following bug-report: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=108514 I think the proper solution is to create a +UGIDS file to be able to maintain a refcount, but the status quo isn't that bad. Personally I'd much prefer to keep them so ls -l, filemanagers etc can continue to use names rather than numbers for any files left behind. IMO the status quo is better than any solution that involves automated deletion. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Users and groups kept after a port deinstallation
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:23:18 +0100 Florent Thoumie f...@xbsd.org wrote: On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:11 AM, David DEMELIER demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I used pkgsrc for a while on NetBSD. I was used to the pkgsrc notifications about the users and groups leaves, when some ports are removed these leaves are not used anymore. e.g pulseaudio needs some users on the system. This was discussed in the following bug-report: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=108514 I think the proper solution is to create a +UGIDS file to be able to maintain a refcount, but the status quo isn't that bad. Personally I'd much prefer to keep them so ls -l, filemanagers etc can continue to use names rather than numbers for any files left behind. IMO the status quo is better than any solution that involves automated deletion. I agree by and large with RW, but it would be nice if there was an audit tool to do this check and suggest whether or not a group should be added or removed in general, regardless of whether or not a pkg/port was added or removed. Thanks, -Garrett ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
