| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 13/06/12 02:09 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 13-06-2012 12:00:16 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Hey all - I'd like to propose that enewuser forces updates to a |
| 7 |
>> user's home dir and shell whenever it is called, so that if this |
| 8 |
>> changes with new versions of an ebuild it is dealt with |
| 9 |
>> automatically rather than having to modify them in |
| 10 |
>> pkg_postinst/pkg_setup directly. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> What if some admin purposely changed home or shell for a system |
| 13 |
> account? Would be quite annoying if every update would reset that, |
| 14 |
> wouldn't it? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I considered this case, and that it might be more appropriate to |
| 20 |
duplicate 'enewuser' into a new call 'eforceuser' (or similar) which |
| 21 |
could be used instead of 'enewuser' in cases when the currently |
| 22 |
provided user settings should be forced. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I decided against this as it seems also to make sense that users |
| 25 |
created by portage should be controlled by portage. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I suppose probably the best means of handling this would be to somehow |
| 28 |
detect whether or not the current user settings are default and only |
| 29 |
apply the updates if they are; however a means of doing that (which |
| 30 |
would be transparent to the ebuild) is somewhat beyond my knowledge |
| 31 |
and abilities. |
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAk/Y3LYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCKKwEAsA2kiUEj2Cz5DyuKzlVUvqlq |
| 36 |
9N7TH6cEUN7ahL6IIgoA/iiJRJ065vQguz5PmitWVugycdNhm/DCyGcL8j0abcgA |
| 37 |
=zd5h |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives