Le vendredi 12 décembre 2014 à 11:53 +0100, Patrick Ohly a écrit : > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 10:09 +0100, José Bollo wrote:
(snip) > It's the same issue that all developers face at the moment: is it okay > to put calls to [user|group]/[add|del] into .spec files? I would answer yes because it is breaking nothing. > And if yes, do we need an explicit runtime dependency to ensure that the > commands are actually available? Dependency on what? > > > I put at the end of this mail the result of the commands "rpm -ql gumd" > > and "rpm -ql pwdutils" that are showing the content of the to projects. > > So it looks like pwdutils is still available and providing the commands. > A hard dependency on it probably can be avoided in spec files by > depending on the commands and not the package. Good idea! (snip) Here is what I propose to do: 1. change pwdutils to provide hooks (useradd.local, ...) that emulate the hook mechanical of gumd 2. change gumd to provide [user|group]/[add|del] by replacing existing one That way there is a transparency using [user|group]/[add|del] because gumd has no own database but use the well known files and because the hooks are provided and called the same way. There will be maybe some difficulties for some details but I think that it could be done. Let continue the discussion here... Best regards José Bollo _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
