| 1 |
On 01/29/2017 06:34 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Our syntax for package names is more restrictive than what POSIX |
| 4 |
> allows for a portable user name. Therefore, there could be user names |
| 5 |
> that are not representable. Have you checked if all user and group |
| 6 |
> names currently in use (at least in the main tree) also follow the |
| 7 |
> rules for package names? IIRC, at some point in time we had names |
| 8 |
> starting with "_" (which is ugly, but would be allowed as a package |
| 9 |
> name) and some "foo-1" type names (which are not allowed). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
There's already a variable SYS_USER_NAME=${PN}. If it turns out there |
| 12 |
are unrepresentable names, we can change that to a default value and let |
| 13 |
people change it in the ebuild. The main benefit of having the username |
| 14 |
be the package name is that it prevents duplicates without any |
| 15 |
additional code or convention. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> What about duplicates turning up in searches for packages? For example, |
| 19 |
> "emerge portage" won't work any more because there would be the ones |
| 20 |
> in sys-group and sys-user too. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Isn't that why we have categories in the first place? |
Archives