The system doesn't always work

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:52:56 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 01:54 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote: 
> > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 13:47 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > In the meantime, the Packaging Guidelines should be updated to clarify
> > > when use of fedora-usermngt is warranted.  I realize there's some
> > > controversy involved, so should FESCO get involved to officially
> > > bless/veto the use of fedora-usermngt?
> > 
> > Yes please. 

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines  <-- I fail
to find fedora-usermgmt in there. It's not mentioned in the Packaging
Guidelines either.

> Well, though I'd appreciate a decision to remove fedora-usermngt, I
> don't think such a decision would be helpful, because this isn't a
> political issue to draw an arbitrary decision or to vote on, but a
> controversial technical issue.

It is not _so_ controversial on the technical level as a recent thread on
this list has demonstrated. There is no alternative implementation
available. The problem that is left is that a few opponents, who don't
have any interest in what problems fedora-usermgmt solves, show ignorance
with regard to its benefits. In the recent thread that made it quite
tiresome to repeat pointing out the benefits of automated [e.g. kickstart
based, network based] installations.

> One party wants to make fedora-usermgnt mandatory, the other party
> considers it script-kiddy crap".
>
> I am a member of the latter party and would consider FESCO drawing a
> decision "pro fedora-usermgnt" as a severe project leadership fault and
> them abusing their "management powers" to overrule technical expertise.

Calm down.

For example, I see no point in making it mandatory as long as such
technology is not available in Fedora Core. Transparent relocation of
uids/gids is a problem which is not easy to solve. fedora-usermgmt makes
it semi-transparent only. Trying to get it included in shadow-utils is
cheap talk.