Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/2] acct-group.eclass: declare the missing dependency on shadow
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 09:48:04 -0400 David Michael wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 5:37 AM Alexis Ballier > wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:54:14 -0400 > > David Michael wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This fix might not be so straightforward. A configuration I > > > tested hit a dependency loop with shadow -> pambase -> systemd -> > > > a bunch of groups -> shadow. It is possible to bootstrap around > > > by emerging shadow with no USE flags first, but I don't know how > > > acceptable it is to introduce new dep loops like this. > > > > what happens without your change ? > > Someone reported an issue in https://bugs.gentoo.org/720948 that > showed shadow and groups are not ordered during installation. I am > not sure what environment produced those symptoms since I never > encountered it, but you can rage-clean shadow and a group, delete the > group, then reinstall it to reproduce the problem. > Yep, that's exactly why one needs the change you are proposing. The dependency loop needs to be resolved, but introducing it like that is IMHO better than failing like in the above bug because it is not resolved properly.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/2] acct-group.eclass: declare the missing dependency on shadow
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 5:37 AM Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:54:14 -0400 > David Michael wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > This fix might not be so straightforward. A configuration I tested > > hit a dependency loop with shadow -> pambase -> systemd -> a bunch of > > groups -> shadow. It is possible to bootstrap around by emerging > > shadow with no USE flags first, but I don't know how acceptable it is > > to introduce new dep loops like this. > > what happens without your change ? Someone reported an issue in https://bugs.gentoo.org/720948 that showed shadow and groups are not ordered during installation. I am not sure what environment produced those symptoms since I never encountered it, but you can rage-clean shadow and a group, delete the group, then reinstall it to reproduce the problem. Thanks. David
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/2] acct-group.eclass: declare the missing dependency on shadow
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:54:14 -0400 David Michael wrote: > Hi, > > This fix might not be so straightforward. A configuration I tested > hit a dependency loop with shadow -> pambase -> systemd -> a bunch of > groups -> shadow. It is possible to bootstrap around by emerging > shadow with no USE flags first, but I don't know how acceptable it is > to introduce new dep loops like this. what happens without your change ? my understanding is that this will be merged in that order: 1. a bunch of groups 2. systemd 3. pambase 4. shadow in which case, the groups from 1. will fail if shadow is not present at that point PS: we have the 'build' useflag for this when building stage1's
[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/2] acct-group.eclass: declare the missing dependency on shadow
Hi, This fix might not be so straightforward. A configuration I tested hit a dependency loop with shadow -> pambase -> systemd -> a bunch of groups -> shadow. It is possible to bootstrap around by emerging shadow with no USE flags first, but I don't know how acceptable it is to introduce new dep loops like this. Thanks. David
