| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:54:41AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 03:44 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and |
| 5 |
> > > I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their |
| 6 |
> > > own eclass. This will resolve some issues with things in system, or |
| 7 |
> > > otherwise early on, requiring shadow on Linux to get useradd. Two |
| 8 |
> > > examples of this are bug #113298 and bug #94745. By putting them in |
| 9 |
> > > their own eclass, we can keep from adding shadow to DEPEND in eutils, |
| 10 |
> > > while still putting the dependency in the eclass that uses it. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > i think i suggested this somewhere before, but why dont we just add |
| 13 |
> > shadow to packages.build ... then it'll be in stage[123] and the DEPEND |
| 14 |
> > will be a moot point |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> That doesn't solve the issue. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
of course it does ... putting a package in packages.build means it will |
| 19 |
be in all stages which means no package (like cronbase) will ever fail |
| 20 |
again because the useradd binaries will always exist |
| 21 |
-mike |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives