Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 19:24 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > I'm looking to minimize what is in a stage1 tarball, not increase it.  I
> > would much prefer that we instead had a proper dependency tree, than
> > hacking around it.  Applications that need to add users on Linux
> > *should* DEPEND on shadow. They should not rely on it being already
> > present.
>
> and when we move the user management hacks out of eclasses and into
> portage itself, where do you think shadow will end up ?  in stage1 is
> my guess

Well, apparently with shadow in packages.build we can no longer build a
stage1 tarball from a stage3.  We also cannot bootstrap, as both of
these tasks strip a large number of USE flags.  As soon as I removed
shadow from packages.build, my builds resumed working.

> i wouldnt qualify shadow as a part of a proper dependency tree since
> it's the ebuild itself that requires it, not the package

It is required by our ebuild to build the package.  I'd call that a
dependency.  If you want to call it a dependency of the eclass or
portage or whatever, I don't care.  It is still a dependency in the
dependency tree.

> > Plus, your solution does not work retroactively to repair
> > issues with the 2005.0, 2005.1, or 2005.1-r1 stages, while mine does.
>
> tell users to stop using stage[12], you're already going that route :p

That still will not fix the issue.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux