1 |
On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 19:23 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
2 |
> On 2021-01-08 19:14, Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
> > The one floppym suggested, i.e. the same as sent patch but with |
4 |
> > the default staying on the current behavior. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Do I understand correctly? You are willing to accept my patch but with |
7 |
> |
8 |
> > ACCT_USER_ALLOW_EXISTING_USER_TO_BE_MODIFIED |
9 |
> |
10 |
> defaulting to a non-zero value to keep current behavior? |
11 |
> |
12 |
> This would be an acceptable compromise for me like it would allow users |
13 |
> like me at least to opt-out. I would still try to convince Gentoo to |
14 |
> change the default later because I believe this is a bad default but of |
15 |
> course I would accept any voting results on this implementation detail. |
16 |
|
17 |
In principle, yes. However, when such a patch is sent I may have more |
18 |
requests. For a start, shorter variable name, say, ACCT_USER_NO_MODIFY |
19 |
or ACCT_USER_NO_UPDATE. |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Best regards, |
23 |
Michał Górny |