Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/9] User/group package draft implementation
On Fri, 2019-05-31 at 11:37 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:08:28PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-05-31 at 09:02 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > I have one small nit-pick. > > > > > > Can we use sys-users and sys-groups for the category names for the user > > > and group packages? > > > > > > I guess the only argument I can give is users and groups are system > > > level things like other categories that start with sys-, so it feels > > > like a good fit to me. > > > > > > > No. They would mix with regular packages which would be confusing. > > How are you defining a regular package? A regular package to me is a > package that installs something on the system. A virtual does not > install anything directly. > A user or group package does install a user or group, so it does install > something. > They have very special purpose that is nothing like a regular package. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/9] User/group package draft implementation
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:08:28PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 2019-05-31 at 09:02 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > I have one small nit-pick. > > > > Can we use sys-users and sys-groups for the category names for the user > > and group packages? > > > > I guess the only argument I can give is users and groups are system > > level things like other categories that start with sys-, so it feels > > like a good fit to me. > > > > No. They would mix with regular packages which would be confusing. How are you defining a regular package? A regular package to me is a package that installs something on the system. A virtual does not install anything directly. A user or group package does install a user or group, so it does install something. William > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/9] User/group package draft implementation
On Fri, 2019-05-31 at 09:02 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > I have one small nit-pick. > > Can we use sys-users and sys-groups for the category names for the user > and group packages? > > I guess the only argument I can give is users and groups are system > level things like other categories that start with sys-, so it feels > like a good fit to me. > No. They would mix with regular packages which would be confusing. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/9] User/group package draft implementation
I have one small nit-pick. Can we use sys-users and sys-groups for the category names for the user and group packages? I guess the only argument I can give is users and groups are system level things like other categories that start with sys-, so it feels like a good fit to me. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/9] User/group package draft implementation
On Thu, 30 May 2019 14:50:30 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Please review the following patches, implementing the user/group package > concept. The patches incorporate some of the feedback to the proposed > GLEP, and I'd like to get them reviewed before I submit the next GLEP > update. They are based on earlier work by mjo. I like the idea and the changes look good. I gather this doesn't address the ROOT problem. That's fine, it wasn't one of the stated goals, I just want to keep it in mind. I still stand by what I said in https://bugs.gentoo.org/541406#c2. The various tools such as useradd do have a -R option to specify a root directory but this performs an actual chroot, making it useless for non-native environments. Even if this somehow worked or if it were run through QEMU, it would still not be sufficient because Portage needs to know about these users and groups from the perspective of the build system. I believe what is needed is some way to intelligently sync the accounts between / and ROOT. If a user or group already exists in / then use the same ID in ROOT. If it doesn't already exist then create it in / first, ensuring that the new ID doesn't clash with one already in ROOT. If there is an unresolvable ID clash then error out. If we're looking to keep all UIDs/GIDs fixed going forwards then clashes obviously become less of an issue. Since writing the above, I've become aware that you can bind mount individual files such as /etc/passwd and there are also new tricks like user namespacing. We could probably come up with something workable but this hasn't reached the top of my pile. -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer pgp7vErIW_k0d.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
