| 1 |
On Thu, 2019-08-01 at 21:04 +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Looking at the new eclasses for acct-user and acct-group. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> These enforce that a group and user id should be set. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> This is not a requirement for enewuser nor enewgroup. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> As a further discrepancy, the user eclass requires >0 for the IDs, |
| 11 |
> whereas the checks in acct-user and acct-group is for >= 0. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Would it be ok to suggest that we allow -1 (or 0, but that could be |
| 14 |
> confused with the root user/group) in acct-user and acct-group to |
| 15 |
> specify "no specific id, please allocate dynamically"? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Use case: I'm building some experimental packages in an overlay, and I |
| 18 |
> really don't care what the UID and GID values are, I just need something |
| 19 |
> unique on the host I can use to avoid running the service as root. |
| 20 |
> Guessing I could just manually useradd -r but then again ... if I do |
| 21 |
> later submit these into the main tree (or other packages) then it |
| 22 |
> becomes a problem, and maintaining acct-{user,group}/* outside of main |
| 23 |
> tree could conflict with main tree at a later stage ... either way, |
| 24 |
> having some way to say "I honestly don't care, just give me a random |
| 25 |
> number" is probably a good thing. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'll look into adding support for '-1' in a few days. However, I'm |
| 29 |
going to add QA checks to prevent it from getting into ::gentoo first. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Michał Górny |
Archives