| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 14 Dec 2015 21:22, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>> The spec seems incomplete. I cannot find a description of the user and |
| 5 |
>> group files' format. (But in fact, there is a standard format which |
| 6 |
>> suggests itself, namely that of the passwd(5) and group(5) files.) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> i recall going with xml at the time, but i can't find reference to it. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
So the package manager would have to parse XML? We have tried to avoid |
| 11 |
that, so far. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
>> Also having whole directory trees seems wasteful and doesn't fit so |
| 14 |
>> well into the existing design of profiles. It might be simpler to put |
| 15 |
>> "user" (or "passwd") and "group" files directly in the profile. |
| 16 |
>> (If directories are really needed, we could use the scheme foreseen |
| 17 |
>> in [1] for package.* and use.* files.) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> we implemented this GLEP in Chromium OS and have been using it for a while: |
| 20 |
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/overlays/eclass-overlay/+/master |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> having a directory of files is way more user friendly imo and allows for |
| 23 |
> a format that is easier to read. /etc/passwd and /etc/group format are |
| 24 |
> not that easy to scan and aren't portable. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
As we most likely will introduce profile file directories in EAPI 7 |
| 27 |
(see bug 282296), I'd rather use the same scheme for the user and |
| 28 |
group files, but not something different. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
>> Also a mechanism how a subprofile could undefine a user or group |
| 31 |
>> defined in its parent seems to be missing. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> what exactly do you mean by that ? you want to make it so attempts to |
| 34 |
> use the account yield an undefined error ? or you want to have it so |
| 35 |
> a child can revert back to an earlier definition ? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
The former. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Ulrich |
Archives