Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:01:39
Message-Id: 1132840481.19957.1.camel@vertigo.twi-31o2.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass by Mike Frysinger
1 On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 03:44 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
2 > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
3 > > OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and
4 > > I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their
5 > > own eclass. This will resolve some issues with things in system, or
6 > > otherwise early on, requiring shadow on Linux to get useradd. Two
7 > > examples of this are bug #113298 and bug #94745. By putting them in
8 > > their own eclass, we can keep from adding shadow to DEPEND in eutils,
9 > > while still putting the dependency in the eclass that uses it.
10 >
11 > i think i suggested this somewhere before, but why dont we just add
12 > shadow to packages.build ... then it'll be in stage[123] and the DEPEND
13 > will be a moot point
14
15 That doesn't solve the issue. The issue is that cronbase *needs* shadow
16 in its dependency tree to force portage to install shadow before
17 cronbase when doing an emerge -e system. It has nothing to do with the
18 stages.
19
20 --
21 Chris Gianelloni
22 Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
23 x86 Architecture Team
24 Games - Developer
25 Gentoo Linux

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>