| 1 |
On 14/02/20 19:48, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: |
| 2 |
>> And now you're changing the subject. You've just claimed that *your* |
| 3 |
>> user's group ownership will be overwritten and when challenged you |
| 4 |
>> present the case of *system* user's group ownership being overwritten. |
| 5 |
> Actually, he showed the rewrite of **system** user (that was modified |
| 6 |
> locally). |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> And, as it already mentioned above, this behaviour violates Gentoo Philosophy |
| 9 |
> of not pretending to be smarter than user and don't dictate them a way to go. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So, if the problem is only in the existance of the bug, I can create it |
| 12 |
> tomorrow morning. |
| 13 |
> But it would be great to know that it wont be closed in a minute after with |
| 14 |
> "WONTFIX, works as expected". |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Also, as already stated, changing the stuff that was modified by user is |
| 17 |
> **prohibited**. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> P.S. I don't care about your relations with whissi, but let's back to the |
| 20 |
> topic: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> [big red letters] |
| 23 |
> We should **NEVER** ever rewrite any system configuration made by local system |
| 24 |
> administrator (call it "user" or whatever). Dixi. |
| 25 |
> [/big red letters] |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Modification of system users and groups are also covered by that user. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> So, we, actually don't need any changes to disable acct-* things at all and |
| 30 |
> make users to manage all the things by themselves. |
| 31 |
> We need a change that will prevent any changes over **already existing** user. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> I think we should make it in a manner like: |
| 34 |
> 1) when we install acct-pkg for a first time - CONFIG_PROTECT changes, and let |
| 35 |
> user to review. |
| 36 |
> 2) when we **reinstall** same package - do **nothing**. Although, I'm not sure |
| 37 |
> here: |
| 38 |
> on the one hand, why should we bother users by merging changes they already |
| 39 |
> did before, |
| 40 |
> on the other hand, it can be useful way to reset to defaults in case if "all |
| 41 |
> this stuff is screwed up". |
| 42 |
> 3) when we upgrade acct-package (assuming there was changes) - only allow |
| 43 |
> "positive" changes (group additions), but not negative (dropiing groups), and |
| 44 |
> anyway CONFIG_PROTECT all the changes. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Well, there is also "kludgy way": does not globally reimplement anything, but: |
| 48 |
> 1) force CFGPROTECT |
| 49 |
> 2) perform a "light" modification to only perform "positive" modifications |
| 50 |
> (see above) on users/groups, but no "negatives". |
| 51 |
> It will anyway fix the both issues Whissi and OP had. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
There is a filthy hack which works around all this nonsense .. throw all |
| 54 |
acct-* packages in a Package.Provided entry, and mask installation of any |
| 55 |
other versions .. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
*runs and hides* |
Archives