On 02/13/20 03:10, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 23:03 -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:59 PM Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 02:32 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
Hi,
thank you for bringing this to the list.
I have
On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 22:35 -0800, Christopher Head wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 08:09:13 -0800
> Christopher Head wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:14:45 +0100
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > I'm pretty sure user.eclass does print whatever changes it is doing.
> > > It isn't elog-ged
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 08:09:13 -0800
Christopher Head wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:14:45 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty sure user.eclass does print whatever changes it is doing.
> > It isn't elog-ged though, I admit. This is probably worth fixing.
So, I didn’t intend to
On 14/02/20 19:48, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
>> And now you're changing the subject. You've just claimed that *your*
>> user's group ownership will be overwritten and when challenged you
>> present the case of *system* user's group ownership being overwritten.
> Actually, he showed the
> Modification of system users and groups are also covered by that user.
fix: <...> by that rule.
--
Best regards,
mva
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
> There's a significant difference between changing group membership for
> a system user versus a user account that is used interactively.
>
> I don't think the handbook advises people to mess with system accounts.
>From my experience this is quite common for web-stuff and similar things,
where
>
> And now you're changing the subject. You've just claimed that *your*
> user's group ownership will be overwritten and when challenged you
> present the case of *system* user's group ownership being overwritten.
Actually, he showed the rewrite of **system** user (that was modified
locally).
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:42 PM Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
>
> > # usermod -aG thomas postfix
> > # id postfix
> > uid=207(postfix) gid=207(postfix)
> groups=207(postfix),12(mail),1004(thomas)
> > # emerge -a1 acct-user/postfix
> > [...]
> >
> > >>> Installing (1 of 1) acct-user/postfix-0::gentoo
On Fri, 2020-02-14 at 18:42 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> > # usermod -aG thomas postfix
> > # id postfix
> > uid=207(postfix) gid=207(postfix)
> groups=207(postfix),12(mail),1004(thomas)
> >
And now you're changing the subject. You've just claimed that *your*
user's group ownership will
> # usermod -aG thomas postfix
> # id postfix
> uid=207(postfix) gid=207(postfix)
groups=207(postfix),12(mail),1004(thomas)
> # emerge -a1 acct-user/postfix
> [...]
>
> >>> Installing (1 of 1) acct-user/postfix-0::gentoo
> * checking 0 files for package collisions
> >>> Merging
On Fri, 2020-02-14 at 18:09 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> On 2020-02-14 16:38, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > Could you just explain please? I’m not inclined to read through the
> > handbook and rebuild a system to guess what this horrible breakage might
> > be.
>
> My point is, that even the
On 2020-02-14 16:38, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> Could you just explain please? I’m not inclined to read through the
> handbook and rebuild a system to guess what this horrible breakage might
> be.
My point is, that even the handbook tells user to modify groups. I.e.
you should add your user to group X
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:12 AM Thomas Deutschmann
wrote:
> On 2020-02-13 17:17, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > I don't agree that this should be happen by default. I suspect the
> > majority of users do not wish to manage system users/groups
> > themselves.
>
> Follow handbook to get a working system
On Fri, 2020-02-14 at 15:12 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> On 2020-02-13 17:17, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > I don't agree that this should be happen by default. I suspect the
> > majority of users do not wish to manage system users/groups
> > themselves.
>
> Follow handbook to get a working
On 2020-02-13 17:17, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> I don't agree that this should be happen by default. I suspect the
> majority of users do not wish to manage system users/groups
> themselves.
Follow handbook to get a working system and rebuild entire world. You
will get surprised.
This is really a bad
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 6:24 PM Michael 'veremitz' Everitt <
gen...@veremit.xyz> wrote:
> On 13/02/20 16:17, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 8:32 PM Thomas Deutschmann
> wrote:
> >> In short: It was a very bad decision that acct-* stuff is *changing*
> >> existing stuff. This
On 13/02/20 16:17, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 8:32 PM Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
>> In short: It was a very bad decision that acct-* stuff is *changing*
>> existing stuff. This must be turned of *by default*. Maybe provide a
>> setting a user can put into make.conf to opt into
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 8:32 PM Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> In short: It was a very bad decision that acct-* stuff is *changing*
> existing stuff. This must be turned of *by default*. Maybe provide a
> setting a user can put into make.conf to opt into current, still new,
> behavior but by
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 08:09 -0800, Christopher Head wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:14:45 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty sure user.eclass does print whatever changes it is doing.
> > It isn't elog-ged though, I admit. This is probably worth fixing.
>
> Yes, I meant elog; sorry
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:14:45 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> I'm pretty sure user.eclass does print whatever changes it is doing.
> It isn't elog-ged though, I admit. This is probably worth fixing.
Yes, I meant elog; sorry about the unclear wording. I generally don’t
even see ordinary print
On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 23:03 -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:59 PM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 02:32 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > thank you for bringing this to the list.
> > >
> > > I have the same experience which is the
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:59 PM Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 02:32 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > thank you for bringing this to the list.
> >
> > I have the same experience which is the reason why I haven't migrated
> > most of my packages yet (which is not a
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 02:32 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thank you for bringing this to the list.
>
> I have the same experience which is the reason why I haven't migrated
> most of my packages yet (which is not a good move because I also didn't
> post the problem to the list like
H. Thinking about it more, this feels a lot like “configuration”, and we
have a well-established tool for handling sysadmins customizing configuration
while packages land new changes: CONFIG_PROTECT. Is that possibly relevant here?
--
Christopher Head
signature.asc
Description: PGP
Hi,
thank you for bringing this to the list.
I have the same experience which is the reason why I haven't migrated
most of my packages yet (which is not a good move because I also didn't
post the problem to the list like I wanted *yet*, I only talked to
people via private mail, chat or at FOSDEM
On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 10:02 -0800, Christopher Head wrote:
> Hi all,
> Yesterday something surprised me. I updated my system and got the
> acct-{user,group}/lighttpd for the first time. Because lighttpd was running,
> package installation failed to change the home directory—fine, it printed an
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:02 AM Christopher Head wrote:
> Hi all,
> Yesterday something surprised me. I updated my system and got the
> acct-{user,group}/lighttpd for the first time. Because lighttpd was
> running, package installation failed to change the home directory—fine, it
> printed an
Hi all,
Yesterday something surprised me. I updated my system and got the
acct-{user,group}/lighttpd for the first time. Because lighttpd was running,
package installation failed to change the home directory—fine, it printed an
error message, I stopped the server, changed the home directory by
28 matches
Mail list logo
