On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 19:23 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2021-01-08 19:14, Michał Górny wrote: > > The one floppym suggested, i.e. the same as sent patch but with > > the default staying on the current behavior. > > Do I understand correctly? You are willing to accept my patch but with > > > ACCT_USER_ALLOW_EXISTING_USER_TO_BE_MODIFIED > > defaulting to a non-zero value to keep current behavior? > > This would be an acceptable compromise for me like it would allow users > like me at least to opt-out. I would still try to convince Gentoo to > change the default later because I believe this is a bad default but of > course I would accept any voting results on this implementation detail.
In principle, yes. However, when such a patch is sent I may have more requests. For a start, shorter variable name, say, ACCT_USER_NO_MODIFY or ACCT_USER_NO_UPDATE. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
