| 1 |
On Mon, 2021-01-04 at 11:10 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 4:23 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, 2021-01-04 at 02:35 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Modifying an existing user is a bad default and makes Gentoo |
| 6 |
> > > special because it is common for system administrators to make |
| 7 |
> > > modifications to user (i.e. putting an user into another service's |
| 8 |
> > > group to allow that user to access service in question) and it |
| 9 |
> > > would be unexpected to see these changes reverted during normal |
| 10 |
> > > world upgrade (which could break services). |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Not modifying an existing user is a horrible default that has already |
| 13 |
> > bricked one system (by removing /dev/null). So, over my dead commit |
| 14 |
> > access. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> As the eclass maintainer, would you be willing to merge a similar |
| 17 |
> patch that enables user modifications by default, but provides |
| 18 |
> sysadmins a way to disable it? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Yes, I don't mind an option, as long as it spews a big fat ewarn that |
| 21 |
the user loses the right to support. However, that's still not |
| 22 |
the right solution to the immediate problem, and I'm currently working |
| 23 |
on a better patch, so I'd prefer if you waited with that to avoid merge |
| 24 |
conflicts. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
Archives