On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 14:08 +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > My main problem with recent changes to filesystem package is that there > is no clear benefits of using sysusers to do the job. Can anyone > enlighten me, or is it a change for the sake of change?
- We move the definition of users/groups from 5 redundant files (4 data and 1
script) to 1 clean configuration file.That make the stuff easier to understand
and manage, so it's a benefits to me.- That make users/groups management
coherent between our packages. Filesystem is no more a special case.- Emptying
the passwd, shadow, group and gshadow will prevent future pacdiff on these
files. Whenever it happened, it was annoying for everyone for nothing.- This is
a step forward to have an Arch working with a transient /etc, as all required
users/groups will be created by systemd-sysusers.
I didn't find a good reason to refuse to implement this BR and with hindsight
it's a smart move.Ok, that's not a revolution, but « a change for the sake of
change»? You are harsh!
> From top of my head, it caused issues with pacstrapping with testing,
> dependency cycle,
> OpenSSH and cups, and I'm certain I missed something.
You are mixing issues from several changes in filesystem and not related
systemd-sysusers.So far the solutions looks good to me. Do you want I sum them
up?Is there one in particular issue you want to discuss outside the bug report?
> If the gain is ditching few lines of bash from install scriplet, we have
> wrong priorities…
What was the gain to change ${CFLAGS} into $CFLAGS to our master plan to
control the universe?Seriously, what is the loss to move to systemd-sysusers?
That a step forward.I don't get why your are not happy that I prioritized this
over swimming with ponies.
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
