| 1 |
On 15 Dec 2015 20:23, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/15/15 4:55 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 15 Dec 2015 22:35, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Whatever the format will be, the more important question is where this |
| 5 |
> >> would be implemented: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> - In the package manager, with user and group definition in profiles. |
| 8 |
> >> This seems to be what GLEP 27 suggests, and as far as I can see, it |
| 9 |
> >> would require an EAPI bump. Certainly doable, but last time we |
| 10 |
> >> bumped profiles to a new EAPI we had a rather long transition |
| 11 |
> >> period. |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> - In user.eclass, which could be extended to use the EUSERS and |
| 14 |
> >> EGROUPS variables defined in ebuilds. The problem is, where would |
| 15 |
> >> one store the user and group definitions then? Profiles cannot be |
| 16 |
> >> accessed from an eclass. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > long term, i think profiles are better to hold the db as it provides for |
| 19 |
> > clean stacking and is trivial for site-specific extension/control, as well |
| 20 |
> > as image builders via something like catalyst. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > short/mid term, i was thinking of writing a new package that holds the db |
| 23 |
> > and tools to query/manage it. user.eclass would DEPEND on it and ask it |
| 24 |
> > for details, perhaps even doing the actual fs updates (the bash code here |
| 25 |
> > is not pretty wrt locks and python would be much nicer). that tool could |
| 26 |
> > even search additional site paths (like /usr/local) to locate overrides. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> how do we get our own uid/gid's in there for our packages? just open a |
| 29 |
> bug against the new package? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
i would open the git repo to all devs and just let anyone push directly |
| 32 |
and roll releases. maybe just push a tag and that's what the ebuild would |
| 33 |
hit. no need to be gate keepers here since we don't today w/ebuilds and |
| 34 |
calls to enew{user,group}. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
the question is how to handle the tools. i'm thinking we should have two |
| 37 |
distinct packages so the db could be completely overridden by overlays. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
the tools could be in the same repo or a sep one. i don't feel strongly |
| 40 |
either way as we'd just mark base-system@ as the maintaining herd. |
| 41 |
-mike |
Archives