Control: retitle -1 adduser --system should default to --home /nonexistent
Control: severity -1 important
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:00:38PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 07:46:21PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > Is one of you interested in filing a bug on lintian for the new
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 07:17:47AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said:
I suggest to tolerate the current behaviour for the upcoming release.
Afterwards, I suggest to either require either --no-home or --home for
system users. Or switch defaults to
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:17:04PM +0100, Wessel Dankers wrote:
Perhaps adduser --system invocations should default to --home /nonexistent
--no-create-home if no --home option was supplied by the invoking
script/user.
I like that idea. Stephen, what do you think?
Greetings
Marc
--
To
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:34:47PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Stephen Gran (sg...@debian.org) [120702 13:25]:
Policy says packages can't rely on the layout of /home/
Some packages invoke adduser --system without the switch --home
In this case, adduser creates a user with $HOME under
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 07:57:38PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 07:05:24AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
Where would you suggest? I can't think of a better place, in the
absence of direction, than /home.
Creating
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 07:46:21PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
Is one of you interested in filing a bug on lintian for the new warning?
Done. #730456
Greetings
Marc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Hi,
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 07:17:47AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said:
Currently, packages become RC-buggy for just adding system users
without --no-home and no --home (even if not relying on the
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 07:17:47AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said:
Currently, packages become RC-buggy for just adding system users
without --no-home and no --home (even if not relying on the
directory). I think that - if we read policy as that -
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 07:05:24AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
Where would you suggest? I can't think of a better place, in the
absence of direction, than /home.
Creating /home/foo will break in the case of an nfs mounted /home, and
other packages are going out of wheezy for using adduser's
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 07:05:24AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
Where would you suggest? I can't think of a better place, in the
absence of direction, than /home.
Creating /home/foo will break in the case of an nfs mounted /home, and
other
* Stephen Gran (sg...@debian.org) [121212 08:19]:
This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said:
Now, I don't agree that this is a bug in adduser - I think this is a bug
in packages invoking adduser. I think the right way to do this is a
mass bug filing on those packages.
I think
This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said:
* Stephen Gran (sg...@debian.org) [121212 08:19]:
This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said:
Now, I don't agree that this is a bug in adduser - I think this is a bug
in packages invoking adduser. I think the right way to do this is
* Stephen Gran (sg...@debian.org) [120702 13:25]:
Policy says packages can't rely on the layout of /home/
Some packages invoke adduser --system without the switch --home
In this case, adduser creates a user with $HOME under /home/
Question now is how bad is directory created unter /home
Hi,
This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said:
Now, I don't agree that this is a bug in adduser - I think this is a bug
in packages invoking adduser. I think the right way to do this is a
mass bug filing on those packages.
I think I disagree here.
If we have a switch on adduser
Hi,
Since some packages do not seem to care about their home directory, and
putting system directories under /home is “obviously” never the answer:
Perhaps adduser --system invocations should default to --home /nonexistent
--no-create-home if no --home option was supplied by the invoking
Your argumentation, the personal attacks set aside, is sound. Please
downgrade at will.
If I were still active in adduser development, I'd probably,
post-wheezy, let adduser emit a warning when adduser --system is
invoked either without --home, or a --home /home option.
Greetings
Marc
On Mon,
Hi,
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 03:43:42PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
Thus, packages using adduser --system and relying on adduser doing the
right thing will get a piuparts-based RC bug in no time.
Package: adduser
Version: 3.113+nmu3
Severity: serious
Hi,
I am really sorry having to file this.
When a package uses adduser --system without explicitly specifying the
home directory of the new user, its home directory gets set to
/home/$USER. Debian QA thinks that this is a policy violation
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
Thus, packages using adduser --system and relying on adduser doing the
right thing will get a piuparts-based RC bug in no time. Adduser
should change its default behavior to something that QA will accept.
And what directory would that be, then?
I
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 03:43:42PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
Thus, packages using adduser --system and relying on adduser doing the
right thing will get a piuparts-based RC bug in no time. Adduser
should change its default behavior to something
Hi,
When a package uses adduser --system without explicitly specifying
home directory of the new user, its home directory gets set to
/home/$USER. Debian QA thinks that this is a policy violation and
supports this by bending FHS.
actually, this isn't completely true. The home directory gets
21 matches
Mail list logo
