non fedora-usermgmt user creation

[Christian.Iseli at licr.org]

bugs.michael at gmx.net said:
> This is even less predictable at installation-time. For resolving virtual
> dependencies currently "shortest package name wins". While useradd from
> shadow-utils and fedora-usermgmt are equivalent if not customised, they are
> different when customised, and beyond that there's much more inside the
> shadow-utils package.

Ok, now I see what you mean.  (except that there's no reason there'd be less 
in fedora-usermgmt than shadow-utils, if fedora-usermgmt is a replacement it 
needs to copy all of it...)

> You try to hide the dependency, which moves the missing
> "Requires: fedora-usermgmt" into nowhere, so admin must take care even more
> than before. 

No, I try to have something consistent.  So far, we have:
 - Core that uses useradd
 - part of Extras that uses useradd
 - part of Extras that uses fedora-usermgmt

So, even if all of Extras is forcefully converted to fedora-usermgmt, we'll 
still have Core packages not obeying its setup.

My scheme would allow to have some harmony all-over.  Maybe it's too brutal.
Maybe some trick like is done for sendmail and lp would be ok.  But that also 
requires the Core part to cooperate...

					Christian