Hi! On Fri, 2019-11-01 at 11:36:19 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 at 17:51:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I think we should adopt sysusers.d fragments as the preferred mechanism > > for creating system users > > I have been tempted to write a small reimplementation of systemd-sysusers > suitable for init-less containers and sysvinit systems, so that we can > rely on its declarative syntax even on non-systemd systems - even though > I use systemd myself and am happy with it as my init system, so it's > entirely possible that I would never *use* the reimplementation.
I guess I'll need to prioritize implementing <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Spec/SysUser>. > I've vaguely considered the same thing for tmpfiles.d, although a full > reimplementation of tmpfiles.d is somewhat more difficult because it's > more featureful. And part of this would be covered too by <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Spec/MetadataTracking>, which is currently blocked by packages accessing the dpkg database, where I need to sit down and file bugs. :/ > > And presumably you would instead propose banning use of systemd-sysusers > > and sysusers.d and requiring continuing to use adduser from maintainer > > scripts as we currently do. I would object because to me that's obviously > > inferior to a declarative syntax. > > Whether declarative or imperative, it's also Debian-specific - which > I think is not *necessarily* a problem, but runs a risk of becoming an > instance of this frequent anti-pattern: In this case (or parts of it), these are in the realm of dpkg and its handling of the filesystem. Thanks, Guillem