On 2015-03-07 at 15:01 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:42:17PM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote: > > On 2015-03-05 at 19:16 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:09:54PM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote: > > > > On 2015-02-26 at 02:53 +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote: > > > > > On 2015-02-26 at 02:46 +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote: > > > > > > Hi there. > > > > > > > > > > > > These patches allow using firstboot and sysusers together to > > > > > > construct an > > > > > > initramfs with a fully functional emergency.service and > > > > > > rescue.service. > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, they allow to build a "clean" passwd for the initramfs > > > > > > and don't > > > > > > resort to copying it from the host system (as it has been done in > > > > > > Arch's > > > > > > mkinitcpio). > > > > > > > > > > > > The first one allows sysusers to take configuration from the real > > > > > > root > > > > > > but to apply it to a specified alternate root. > > > > > > > > > > > > The next two patches fix an apparent integration problem between > > > > > > firstboot > > > > > > and sysusers, as previously described here: > > > > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-February/028355.html > > > > > > > > > > > > All in all, with this series I'm able to do a simple > > > > > > > > > > > > systemd-firstboot --root="$BUILDROOT" --root-password="" > > > > > > systemd-sysusers --dest-root="$BUILDROOT" > > > > > > > > > > > > and, after adding respective units and /sbin/sulogin to the > > > > > > initramfs, > > > > > > to use "rd.systemd.unit=rescue.target" as a complete alternative to > > > > > > pre-systemd > > > > > > arch-specific "break=premount" kernel parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > Forgot to add Dave Reisner to Cc:. > > > > > > > > > > Dave, what do you think about all this? If this is a bad idea, then > > > > > I'm > > > > > open for suggestions. > > > > > I just miss these "break=..." from the pre-systemd era. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone? > > > 2/3 and 3/3 look fine. For 1/3 I was wondering if it wouldn't be simpler > > > to simply copy the sysuser files into the tree. The semantics are then > > > clear. But right now, if there are sysuser files in the source root, and > > > in the destination root, it becomes unclear how to sort and merge them. > > > > Well, the intended semantics are pretty clear as well: simply ignore > > configs everywhere except the --config-root. (Just like we ignore > > configs in / when --root is given, for example.) > Right, the semantics are clear as far as the patch goes and they fit your > use case. But I think they would be less intuitive to users in general. > The main idea of sysusers (and tmpfiles) is that after wiping /etc the > can be restored to "factory defaults". If the configuration is created > using external files in --config-root, this property is lost. > > Even if you don't intend / don't support wiping /etc, I still see value > in seeing that certain parts of the configuration came from sysusers. > > > Yes, copying/symlinking sysusers.d directories or individual files into > > the initramfs build root is less intrusive from the code perspective. > > But what if people add their own sysusers.d (people tend to have crazy > > setups...)? That'll need to be worked around. > I don't understand. If they do something crazy in the root they are building, > that's ok.
I mean that the code which will do the building will have to work around if sysusers.d directories already exist due to some user-imposed craziness. But well, this is a minor issue. If you are sure that this functionality has no place in sysusers - let it be so. -- Ivan Shapovalov / intelfx /
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel