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 5E6771382C5 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DE6D8E0893; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:14:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.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 AA24DE0885 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:14:57 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <65a963dc763265ab1e6a992975d0f01787d2628d.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 19:14:52 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20210104013558.20072-1-whissi@gentoo.org> <809f727af51f7dcd9aec97a800c0ecd89f60eaa6.camel@gentoo.org> <85a7ff62c353e13e2c2c8c93b7c90282d6d1f045.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: d34daf41-525a-46c6-9a94-15dc21696ce4 X-Archives-Hash: 270dd7db0b57502be8c64056230c356c On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 19:11 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 04-01-2021 17:14:47 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > Yes, I don't mind an option, as long as it spews a big fat ewarn that > > the user loses the right to support. However, that's still not > > the right solution to the immediate problem, and I'm currently working > > on a better patch, so I'd prefer if you waited with that to avoid merge > > conflicts. > > Could you please share your intended approach? The one floppym suggested, i.e. the same as sent patch but with the default staying on the current behavior. -- Best regards, Michał Górny