| 1 |
On 1/19/20 9:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
>> |
| 3 |
>> Fantasy scenarios again. I'm not going to debunk a system that you just |
| 4 |
>> thought up and that has never existed. Why don't you find one person who |
| 5 |
>> actually does this, and see if it bothers him if we create a home |
| 6 |
>> directory under /home where it belongs? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Uh, I'm pretty confident that nothing in my /home is owned by a UID |
| 9 |
> under 1000, or has an ACL referencing such a UID. I just checked with |
| 10 |
> myself and I don't want you creating directories in /home. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
This is retarded, stop wasting my time. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> I mean, would it kill you to just talk to QA first? |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> I've already got responses from two QA members. This thread is pretty |
| 19 |
>> hard to miss. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Well, then why go posting stuff like "guess we'll be triggering a |
| 22 |
> warning after all?" |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If these two things are logically connected, I don't see it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
>> I'm working on a patch for the install-qa-check.d check |
| 29 |
>> and I'm sure I'll get more when I post it. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Are you just allowing it to not create the directory, or are we |
| 32 |
> considering patching it to allow creating stuff under /home? It would |
| 33 |
> seem that the policy would also need updating in that case, but |
| 34 |
> probably not the former. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
The patch will make an exception for acct-user packages only; for /home, |
| 38 |
/home/${PN}, and /home/${PN}/.keep*. In other words, it makes things |
| 39 |
work exactly how they did before the GLEP81 eclass started keepdir'ing |
| 40 |
the home directory. |
Archives