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

[Mike Frysinger]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:24:44AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 19:34 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:54:41AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 03:44 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > > OK.  I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and
> > > > > I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their
> > > > > own eclass.  This will resolve some issues with things in system, or
> > > > > otherwise early on, requiring shadow on Linux to get useradd.  Two
> > > > > examples of this are bug #113298 and bug #94745.  By putting them in
> > > > > their own eclass, we can keep from adding shadow to DEPEND in eutils,
> > > > > while still putting the dependency in the eclass that uses it.
> > > >
> > > > i think i suggested this somewhere before, but why dont we just add
> > > > shadow to packages.build ... then it'll be in stage[123] and the DEPEND
> > > > will be a moot point
> > >
> > > That doesn't solve the issue.
> >
> > of course it does ... putting a package in packages.build means it will
> > be in all stages which means no package (like cronbase) will ever fail
> > again because the useradd binaries will always exist
>
> 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

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

> 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
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list