| 1 |
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:54:14 -0400 |
| 2 |
David Michael <fedora.dm0@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hi, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> This fix might not be so straightforward. A configuration I tested |
| 7 |
> hit a dependency loop with shadow -> pambase -> systemd -> a bunch of |
| 8 |
> groups -> shadow. It is possible to bootstrap around by emerging |
| 9 |
> shadow with no USE flags first, but I don't know how acceptable it is |
| 10 |
> to introduce new dep loops like this. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
what happens without your change ? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
my understanding is that this will be merged in that order: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
1. a bunch of groups |
| 18 |
2. systemd |
| 19 |
3. pambase |
| 20 |
4. shadow |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
in which case, the groups from 1. will fail if shadow is not present at |
| 24 |
that point |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
PS: we have the 'build' useflag for this when building stage1's |
Archives