From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D4331382C5 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:32:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C2A5E08AD; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:32:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10D9BE0882 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:32:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <3bd864acdfc7868fe5476c956cc469c4ab973adb.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] acct-user.eclass: don't modify existing user by default From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 19:32:31 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20210104013558.20072-1-whissi@gentoo.org> <809f727af51f7dcd9aec97a800c0ecd89f60eaa6.camel@gentoo.org> <85a7ff62c353e13e2c2c8c93b7c90282d6d1f045.camel@gentoo.org> <65a963dc763265ab1e6a992975d0f01787d2628d.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.2 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 72f84a88-8e05-41f7-9db5-ee8eab434dee X-Archives-Hash: 8ffc6202683e71cbfc81593759196359 On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 19:23 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2021-01-08 19:14, Michał Górny wrote: > > The one floppym suggested, i.e. the same as sent patch but with > > the default staying on the current behavior. > > Do I understand correctly? You are willing to accept my patch but with > >  > ACCT_USER_ALLOW_EXISTING_USER_TO_BE_MODIFIED > > defaulting to a non-zero value to keep current behavior? > > This would be an acceptable compromise for me like it would allow users > like me at least to opt-out. I would still try to convince Gentoo to > change the default later because I believe this is a bad default but of > course I would accept any voting results on this implementation detail. In principle, yes. However, when such a patch is sent I may have more requests. For a start, shorter variable name, say, ACCT_USER_NO_MODIFY or ACCT_USER_NO_UPDATE. -- Best regards, Michał Górny