On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 5:26 PM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 17:14 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/691478 > > Signed-off-by: Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> > > --- > > eclass/acct-user.eclass | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/eclass/acct-user.eclass b/eclass/acct-user.eclass > > index 60009643c144..cec5d0506879 100644 > > --- a/eclass/acct-user.eclass > > +++ b/eclass/acct-user.eclass > > @@ -334,6 +334,11 @@ acct-user_pkg_preinst() { > > if [[ -z ${ACCT_USER_HOME_OWNER} ]]; then > > > ACCT_USER_HOME_OWNER=${ACCT_USER_NAME}:${ACCT_USER_GROUPS[0]} > > fi > > + # Path might be missing due to INSTALL_MASK, etc. > > + # https://bugs.gentoo.org/691478 > > + if [[ ! -e "${ED}/${ACCT_USER_HOME#/}" ]]; then > > + keepdir "${ACCT_USER_HOME}" > > + fi > > Doesn't it violate the principle of least surprise if you recreate > the path that user intentionally wanted stripped? > > > fowners "${ACCT_USER_HOME_OWNER}" "${ACCT_USER_HOME}" > > fperms "${ACCT_USER_HOME_PERMS}" "${ACCT_USER_HOME}" > > fi > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > I was debating that with myself after I sent this. I suppose we could just skip it if it is missing. >
