| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 09:25:45AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > GLEP 27 [1] seems pretty stagnant and I'm planning on giving it a bit |
| 5 |
>> > of a refresh and actually implementing it. Now before I do this I'm |
| 6 |
>> > not in love with the format in tree but I haven't decided on a format |
| 7 |
>> > exactly in my head. So that being said, I'm sending this out looking |
| 8 |
>> > for some opinions or ideas for my new GLEP. One of the obvious things |
| 9 |
>> > I'll cover is all the ambiguity of the GLEP with regard to the data |
| 10 |
>> > inside each of the files. |
| 11 |
>> > |
| 12 |
>> > [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0027.html |
| 13 |
>> One idea worth considering is making users just ebuilds with a |
| 14 |
>> supporting eclass. |
| 15 |
> While I'm hugely in favour of having consistent UID/GIDs with no |
| 16 |
> conflicts over all Gentoo machines, I feel one of the reasons that the |
| 17 |
> GLEP failed was that users required by ebuilds changed over ebuild |
| 18 |
> versions, and the GLEP didn't seem to handle that well. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Cases I've seen in the tree: |
| 21 |
> - username change (slocate -> locate) |
| 22 |
> - homedir change |
| 23 |
> - shell change |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Which would seem to mean that Petteri's suggestion would work better |
| 27 |
since that would allow us to version/upgrade user/group data. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Doug Goldstein |
Archives