On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 08:17:07AM +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
On Thursday 10 July 2014 01:49:41 Lennart Poettering wrote:
Please understand that we are not duplicating adduser here. Already in
the name of the tool we wanted to make clear thtat this is abotu system
users, nothing else. The
- Original Message -
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014, at 07:30 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On a typical system _no_ accounts are misssing from the shadow files, so
tools and admins’ scripts are not designed and rigorously
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 20:05 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 10.07.14 12:44, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 17:18 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
We /do/ plan on the syncing anyway, because some admins are
still used to vipw their passwd databases and there
On Fri, 11.07.14 05:41, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
The reason why we *must* use a notification mechanism is that we
maintain a very fast cache as a mmapped database to avoid roundtrips
from applications, so we simply *do not* know when someone looks up data
there. This means we need
On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 12:52 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 11.07.14 05:41, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
The reason why we *must* use a notification mechanism is that we
maintain a very fast cache as a mmapped database to avoid roundtrips
from applications, so we simply
See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118907
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com wrote:
(This is all rather beside the point: fixing those particular things won’t
eliminate any of the problems of triplicate implementations and splintered
knowledge. But to spread the awareness of the area…)
- Original
On Wednesday, July 9, 2014, 1:24:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2014 19:18, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
Please, no! As soon as you use disparate systems in a network
environment, having differing versions of UID_MIN (where
Am 10.07.2014 09:37, schrieb Al Dunsmuir:
On Wednesday, July 9, 2014, 1:24:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2014 19:18, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
Please, no! As soon as you use disparate systems in a network
environment, having
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 08:17 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
A non-API related question...
Generally, I prefer the explicit systemd settings over home directory
with magical effects, but I wonder if anyone is aware of existing
system users which carry more complex semantics.
Perhaps look at the
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014, at 12:46 AM, William wrote:
Under what conditions are these two files created / touched?
When systemd-sysusers is run.
When I install a package and add a file to this sysuser directory, is
only that user added to passwd and shadow?
The answer to this is pretty
On Thu, 10.07.14 08:17, Oron Peled (o...@actcom.co.il) wrote:
A non-API related question...
On Thursday 10 July 2014 01:49:41 Lennart Poettering wrote:
Please understand that we are not duplicating adduser here. Already in
the name of the tool we wanted to make clear thtat this is
On Thu, 10.07.14 17:16, William (will...@firstyear.id.au) wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 08:17 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
A non-API related question...
Generally, I prefer the explicit systemd settings over home directory
with magical effects, but I wonder if anyone is aware of existing
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 10:30:27AM -0400, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
- Original Message -
Hi, for Atomic I'd like to investigate the new systemd-sysusers, so I
wrote up a Change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdSysusers
A move to something more declarative makes sense
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014, at 05:42 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Two examples from the top of my head:
* Some tftpd implementations use it as the base path (and chroot into it)
* Some anonymous ftpd implementation have similar use (chroot into ~ftp)
But these aren't really usable without
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 17:18 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
We /do/ plan on the syncing anyway, because some admins are
still used to vipw their passwd databases and there are legacy scripts
around, but still -- could we, when the SSSD interface is available,
call out from systemd-sysusers to the
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:44:29PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 17:18 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
We /do/ plan on the syncing anyway, because some admins are
still used to vipw their passwd databases and there are legacy scripts
around, but still -- could we, when the SSSD
On Thu, 10.07.14 12:44, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 17:18 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
We /do/ plan on the syncing anyway, because some admins are
still used to vipw their passwd databases and there are legacy scripts
around, but still -- could we, when the
Thank you both for your response. It's appreciated.
* Files in systemd's sysusers configuration directory will be used as a
data source to create /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow.
Also, /etc/group and /etc/gshadow.
Under what conditions are these two files created / touched?
Three
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 08:35 -0700, Colin Walters wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014, at 05:42 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Two examples from the top of my head:
* Some tftpd implementations use it as the base path (and chroot into it)
* Some anonymous ftpd implementation have similar use
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:05:29AM +0930, William wrote:
Thank you both for your response. It's appreciated.
* Files in systemd's sysusers configuration directory will be used as a
data source to create /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow.
Also, /etc/group and /etc/gshadow.
Hi, for Atomic I'd like to investigate the new systemd-sysusers, so I
wrote up a Change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdSysusers
Note: for Fedora 22.
The main motivation for me is it would allow Atomic to not be a Remix
due to the not-in-Fedora shadow-utils patch[1] Further, it
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 06:19:19AM -0700, Colin Walters wrote:
Hi, for Atomic I'd like to investigate the new systemd-sysusers, so I
wrote up a Change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdSysusers
Note: for Fedora 22.
The main motivation for me is it would allow Atomic to not
- Original Message -
Hi, for Atomic I'd like to investigate the new systemd-sysusers, so I
wrote up a Change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdSysusers
A move to something more declarative makes sense (whether in systemd or through
some kind of long-expected declarative
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014, at 06:34 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Colin, we're _really_ hoping to make Atomic a flagship feature for Fedora
Cloud in F21. If I work on getting the shadow-utils patch landed, does
that
_conflict_ with the new approach?
It doesn't conflict, no. Let's discuss this in the
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014, at 07:30 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
* validates names incorrectly
We're talking about the equivalent of lu_name_allowed() from libuser?
Something like the
/* Allow trailing $ for samba machine accounts. */
?
But the usernames specified here are only for system users,
(This is all rather beside the point: fixing those particular things won’t
eliminate any of the problems of triplicate implementations and splintered
knowledge. But to spread the awareness of the area…)
- Original Message -
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014, at 07:30 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
*
On Wed, 09.07.14 06:19, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
Hi, for Atomic I'd like to investigate the new systemd-sysusers, so I
wrote up a Change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdSysusers
Note: for Fedora 22.
The main motivation for me is it would allow Atomic to
On Wed, 09.07.14 10:30, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
- Original Message -
Hi, for Atomic I'd like to investigate the new systemd-sysusers, so I
wrote up a Change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdSysusers
A move to something more declarative makes
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
On Wed, 09.07.14 10:30, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
* breaks the configurable [UG]ID_MIN logic
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/1000SystemAccounts, and yes,
that is actually used and needed)
Well, this is
Am 09.07.2014 19:18, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
On Wed, 09.07.14 10:30, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
* breaks the configurable [UG]ID_MIN logic
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/1000SystemAccounts, and yes,
that is
On Wed, 09.07.14 12:25, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
Can you be more specific about the name validation?
The binding maximum length constraint is from the utmp format
(UT_NAMESIZE - 1); LOGIN_NAME_MAX is an upper bound but not binding,
and this has already ended up in
- Original Message -
On Wed, 09.07.14 10:30, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
- Original Message -
A move to something more declarative makes sense (whether in systemd or
through some kind of long-expected declarative rpm facility doesn’t matter
to me much.)
- Original Message -
On Wed, 09.07.14 12:25, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
Can you be more specific about the name validation?
The binding maximum length constraint is from the utmp format
(UT_NAMESIZE - 1); LOGIN_NAME_MAX is an upper bound but not binding,
and this
On Wed, 09.07.14 13:47, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
Yeah, because we dodn't want to intrdocue any new API we have carefully
made sure that whenever we write pasword, group and shadow files we use
existing APIs from glibc, more specifically putpwent(), putgrent(),
putspent()
A non-API related question...
On Thursday 10 July 2014 01:49:41 Lennart Poettering wrote:
Please understand that we are not duplicating adduser here. Already in
the name of the tool we wanted to make clear thtat this is abotu system
users, nothing else. The file format we defined has been
36 matches
Mail list logo
