[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: non fedora-usermgmt user creation



ville skytta iki fi (Ville Skyttä) writes:

>> 3. Would it be really a problem to maintain another spec-file?
>
> Do I really have to answer that question?

I think, it is wasted time to try to write spec-files which are running on
all and every distribution. Finally you will end in a bunch of conditional
macros and with such macros, you can choose between fedora-usermgmt and
plain useradd.

People who want universal specfiles can write

| %pre
| if test -x /usr/sbin/fedora-useradd; then
|    /usr/sbin/fedora-useradd ...
| else
|    /usr/sbin/useradd ...
| fi

with current fedora-usermgmt.


>> >     # Note lowest common dependency: no fedora-useradd or mgmt here
>> >     Requires(pre): /usr/sbin/useradd
>> 
>> This would not work well with vanilla installations because you can
>> not tell an installation order there. Therefore, 'fedora-usermgmt'
>> must be a Requires(...):
>
> No it doesn't because it's not *required at all* in this approach.
> And like I mentioned, users of fedora-usermgmt have to configure it
> beforehand anyway in order to get it to make any difference.  In your
> words: "It behaves exactly like a plain 'useradd' without explicit
> activation".

This explicit activation can happen in the %pre script of kickstart. In
the following package installation, packages must be in the proper
order.


> about how fedora-usermgmt-like stuff could be implemented in a less
> intrusive way.  Sadly, from your comments I can't help getting the
> feeling that you're not really interested in achieving that in the
> first place.

fedora-usermgmt is already minimally intrusive. I do not think that
avoiding work to port spec files to non-Fedora Extras distributions
would justify the added complexity in scriptlets.



Enrico

Attachment: pgpGLAN57edlf.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]