Hi Guys,
Attaching. It seems for some reason if I inline the patches they don't
come through. If I mail to myself only it works just fine.
Kind Regards,
Jaco Kroon
C.E.O.
*T:* +27 (0)12 021 0000 | *F:* +27 86 648 8561 | *E:* j...@iewc.co.za
*W:* iewc.co.za <http://www.iewc.co.za/> | *A:* Unit 201, Building 2B,
Sunwood Park, Queen's Crescent Lynnwood, Pretoria
Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/Interexcel/> Twitter
<https://twitter.com/Interexcel/> Google+
<https://plus.google.com/+InterexcelCoZaPTA/posts> LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/com/images/ico-linkedin.jpg>
<http://www.iewc.co.za/> <http://www.uls.co.za/>
This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
View Disclaimer <http://www.iewc.co.za/email-disclaimer/>
On 2019/08/04 18:22, Jaco Kroon wrote:
Hi Michał,
On 2019/08/02 19:06, Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 12:24 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 8/2/19 11:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Given that overlays won't do proper assignment, the numbers they
choose
may collide with numbers used in ::gentoo. Forcing explicit
assignment
from dynamic range is cleaner in that regard.
I think it would be cleanest to leave the hacks in the overlay, and set
the desired ID to either 999 or a random number like floppym suggested.
The meaning of RANDOM is even more clear than "-1", and doesn't require
us to add both the code that's dead-on-arrival and the CI check to
ensure that it stays that way. But you're the one who's maintaining it
now so I won't argue.
I suppose setting it to 999 would also serve the purpose. Jaco, do you
agree?
No objections.
999 I think is probably as good a reserved "don't care" number as any,
since really the first dynamic allocation will already use that.
Kind Regards,
Jaco
>From bf26d929f32d02c5af1967ec4257e0f69fdf7f07 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
In-Reply-To: <cec3d8e0-fcf6-8c8c-f190-ddecb06bf...@uls.co.za>
References: <cec3d8e0-fcf6-8c8c-f190-ddecb06bf...@uls.co.za>
From: Jaco Kroon <j...@uls.co.za>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2019 18:44:09 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] acct-group eclass - enforce GID > 0 instead of GID >= 0.
To: Jaco Kroon <j...@uls.co.za>
Signed-off-by: Jaco Kroon <j...@uls.co.za>
---
eclass/acct-group.eclass | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/eclass/acct-group.eclass b/eclass/acct-group.eclass
index 9eab00db690..9a759f03c57 100644
--- a/eclass/acct-group.eclass
+++ b/eclass/acct-group.eclass
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ acct-group_pkg_pretend() {
# verify ACCT_GROUP_ID
[[ -n ${ACCT_GROUP_ID} ]] || die "Ebuild error: ACCT_GROUP_ID must be set!"
- [[ ${ACCT_GROUP_ID} -ge 0 ]] || die "Ebuild errors: ACCT_GROUP_ID=${ACCT_GROUP_ID} invalid!"
+ [[ ${ACCT_GROUP_ID} -gt 0 ]] || die "Ebuild errors: ACCT_GROUP_ID=${ACCT_GROUP_ID} invalid!"
# check for ACCT_GROUP_ID collisions early
if [[ -n ${ACCT_GROUP_ENFORCE_ID} ]]; then
--
2.21.0
>From 8ed213968674d38a6809f8638bb649d43cb1a7bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
In-Reply-To: <cec3d8e0-fcf6-8c8c-f190-ddecb06bf...@uls.co.za>
References: <cec3d8e0-fcf6-8c8c-f190-ddecb06bf...@uls.co.za>
From: Jaco Kroon <j...@uls.co.za>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2019 18:45:17 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] acct-user eclass: enforce UID > 0 instead of UID >= 0.
To: Jaco Kroon <j...@uls.co.za>
Signed-off-by: Jaco Kroon <j...@uls.co.za>
---
eclass/acct-user.eclass | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/eclass/acct-user.eclass b/eclass/acct-user.eclass
index 60009643c14..1276331275c 100644
--- a/eclass/acct-user.eclass
+++ b/eclass/acct-user.eclass
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ acct-user_pkg_pretend() {
# verify ACCT_USER_ID
[[ -n ${ACCT_USER_ID} ]] || die "Ebuild error: ACCT_USER_ID must be set!"
- [[ ${ACCT_USER_ID} -ge 0 ]] || die "Ebuild errors: ACCT_USER_ID=${ACCT_USER_ID} invalid!"
+ [[ ${ACCT_USER_ID} -gt 0 ]] || die "Ebuild errors: ACCT_USER_ID=${ACCT_USER_ID} invalid!"
# check for ACCT_USER_ID collisions early
if [[ -n ${ACCT_USER_ENFORCE_ID} ]]; then
--
2.21.0
