Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-12-03 Thread Daniel Campbell
On 11/28/2016 03:26 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 28/11/16 19:39, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >> For now who cares about other OS or distros. If Gentoo gets its house in >> order >> others may follow. >> > At the risk of a huge flame, remind me, who uses Gentoo again?! > Unless something's

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-30 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:38:57 PM EST Michael Mol wrote: > > You're asserting that Red Hat and Debian do things differently because > there's nobody to force them to do things the same way. It can't be because > there's no reference for them to look at; for sure, the second into market >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-30 Thread Michael Mol
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 03:25:21 PM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:08:30 PM EST Michael Mol wrote: > > > IMHO it is something that should be a part of LSB. If not POSIX in > > > general. One cannot really change the past or current state of things. > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-30 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:08:30 PM EST Michael Mol wrote: > > > IMHO it is something that should be a part of LSB. If not POSIX in > > general. One cannot really change the past or current state of things. > > But can make > the future better. > > > For now who cares about other OS or

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-30 Thread Michael Mol
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 01:41:24 PM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 1:22:07 PM EST Michael Mol wrote: > > If Gentoo wants to do it internally, that's one thing. > > This list is about Gentoo internal things Here, let me bring up a bit of recent history

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-30 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 1:22:07 PM EST Michael Mol wrote: > > > If Gentoo wants to do it internally, that's one thing. This list is about Gentoo internal things > But I would recommend > against inviting other distributions to use Gentoo's list, which was > something you seemed to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-30 Thread Michael Mol
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 04:49:24 PM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 10:40:20 AM EST Michael Mol wrote: > > Highly detailed lists like that--used as a broad standard--are a bad idea. > > They represent a single synchronization point that everyone must adhere > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-30 Thread james
On 11/30/2016 10:23 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: A couple more links, I should have provided initially as they better support the argument. First from Debian, I cannot find a list, but it is clearly mentioned. "0-99: Globally allocated by the Debian project, the same on every Debian

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-30 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
A couple more links, I should have provided initially as they better support the argument. First from Debian, I cannot find a list, but it is clearly mentioned. "0-99: Globally allocated by the Debian project, the same on every Debian system"

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-30 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:54:42 AM EST Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:13:29 -0500 > > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: >> > > I think you mean enewgroup and enewuser > > FYI, enew* functions handle UID/GID collisions gracefully, and just > fallback to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-29 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:13:29 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:49:44 AM EST Alan McKinnon wrote: > > > > Why would you end up with duplicated UIDs and GIDs? The only real ways > > that can happen is > > - ebuild "edits" passwd and

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-29 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:49:44 AM EST Alan McKinnon wrote: > > Why would you end up with duplicated UIDs and GIDs? The only real ways > that can happen is > - ebuild "edits" passwd and group directly using echo/sed and the like. > - ebuild runs useradd|groupadd specifying the uid/gid as

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-29 Thread Alan McKinnon
On 29/11/2016 23:49, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 10:40:20 AM EST Michael Mol wrote: >> >> >> Highly detailed lists like that--used as a broad standard--are a bad idea. >> They represent a single synchronization point that everyone must adhere to. > > That is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-29 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 10:40:20 AM EST Michael Mol wrote: > > > Highly detailed lists like that--used as a broad standard--are a bad idea. > They represent a single synchronization point that everyone must adhere to. That is a statement based on opinion. You say it is a bad idea. I say it

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-29 Thread Michael Mol
On Monday, November 28, 2016 02:39:48 PM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Monday, November 28, 2016 10:42:54 AM EST Alec Warner wrote: > > Generally speaking as a fellow who maintained thousands of systems (many > > of > > which ran various operating systems.) > > > > You cannot rely on all OS

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-28 Thread M. J. Everitt
On 28/11/16 19:39, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > For now who cares about other OS or distros. If Gentoo gets its house in > order > others may follow. > At the risk of a huge flame, remind me, who uses Gentoo again?! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-28 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Monday, November 28, 2016 10:42:54 AM EST Alec Warner wrote: > > Generally speaking as a fellow who maintained thousands of systems (many of > which ran various operating systems.) > > You cannot rely on all OS vendors to synchronize uid / gid. You cannot even > rely on some single vendors to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-28 Thread Alec Warner
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:21 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Friday, November 25, 2016 11:39:15 PM EST Daniel Campbell wrote: > > > > I could see a use-case for someone wanting to install a given daemon or > > server with a specific user and/or group. I'm not sure this

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-28 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Friday, November 25, 2016 11:39:15 PM EST Daniel Campbell wrote: > > I could see a use-case for someone wanting to install a given daemon or > server with a specific user and/or group. I'm not sure this is the right > approach (nor do I know what is), but I think we have room to think > about a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-25 Thread Daniel Campbell
On 11/23/2016 01:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:44:33 +0100 > Manuel Rüger wrote: > >> I have not started to write it, but I am considering it and rather want >> to gather feedback on my idea first. >> I am aware that https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:27

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-23 Thread Zac Medico
On 11/23/2016 12:44 AM, Manuel Rüger wrote: > My only concerns right now are: > Where to store those ${CATEGORY}-${PN}_user and ${CATEGORY}-${PN}_group? > One solution could be to have another eclass named userkit-data.eclass, > which is empty by default and needs to be forked to an overlay and

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-23 Thread Zac Medico
On 11/23/2016 09:46 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:44:33 +0100 > Manuel Rüger wrote: > >> What happens if the ebuild wants to create multiple users/group? >> Currently, I want to ignore that case and focus on the 80% ebuilds that >> can profit from such an

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-23 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:44:33 +0100 Manuel Rüger wrote: > What happens if the ebuild wants to create multiple users/group? > Currently, I want to ignore that case and focus on the 80% ebuilds that > can profit from such an eclass. You can solve that part quite easily really.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-23 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:19:42 +0100 Manuel Rüger wrote: > On 23.11.2016 10:08, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:44:33 +0100 > > Manuel Rüger wrote: > > > >> I have not started to write it, but I am considering it and rather want > >> to gather

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-23 Thread Manuel Rüger
On 23.11.2016 10:08, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:44:33 +0100 > Manuel Rüger wrote: > >> I have not started to write it, but I am considering it and rather want >> to gather feedback on my idea first. >> I am aware that https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:27

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-23 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:44:33 +0100 Manuel Rüger wrote: > I have not started to write it, but I am considering it and rather want > to gather feedback on my idea first. > I am aware that https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:27 exists, but as of > right now I haven't seen anyone

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-11-23 Thread Manuel Rüger
Hi everyone, I have not started to write it, but I am considering it and rather want to gather feedback on my idea first. I am aware that https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:27 exists, but as of right now I haven't seen anyone working on it. The goal of this eclass is to improve user/group handling