This adds a -native recipe for the shadow utilities.
The custom --root option allows the the following utilities to be
run within a chroot when invoked under pseudo:
* useradd
* groupadd
* usermod
* groupmod
* userdel
* groupdel
* passwd
* gpasswd
* pwconv
* pwunconv
* grpconv
* grpunconv
They c
This adds a -native recipe for the shadow utilities.
The custom --root option allows the the following utilities to be
run within a chroot when invoked under pseudo:
* useradd
* groupadd
* usermod
* groupmod
* userdel
* groupdel
* passwd
* gpasswd
* pwconv
* pwunconv
* grpconv
* grpunconv
They c
I just tried using useradd.bbclass for the first time (in an effort to
make dbus installable on a readonly-rootfs) and it doesn't seem to be
working very well for me.
The root of my problem seems to be the code below. As far as I can
tell, what's happening is that process_root_flag() consumes all
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 15:46 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> I just tried using useradd.bbclass for the first time (in an effort to
> make dbus installable on a readonly-rootfs) and it doesn't seem to be
> working very well for me.
>
> The root of my problem seems to be the code below. As far as I c
On 9/1/11 11:41 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 15:46 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> I just tried using useradd.bbclass for the first time (in an effort to
>> make dbus installable on a readonly-rootfs) and it doesn't seem to be
>> working very well for me.
>>
>> The root of my pro
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 11:54 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> What is it depending on for the target? Is the shadow-utils or something now
> required? That doesn't seem to make sense to me -- other then we need a
> passwd/group/shadow/gshadow file to work with. As long as something can
> provide
> tho
On 9/1/11 11:58 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 11:54 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> What is it depending on for the target? Is the shadow-utils or something now
>> required? That doesn't seem to make sense to me -- other then we need a
>> passwd/group/shadow/gshadow file to work wi
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:25 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 9/1/11 11:58 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > And, I guess, if you want to support online package management then it
> > does make some sense to have the shadow utils there. But I don't
> > need/want that in my configuration.
>
> Does busybox
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:44 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:25 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> > On 9/1/11 11:58 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > > And, I guess, if you want to support online package management then it
> > > does make some sense to have the shadow utils there. But I
On 9/1/11 4:59 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:44 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:25 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>> On 9/1/11 11:58 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
And, I guess, if you want to support online package management then it
does make some sen
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 22:59 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> The latter sounds like what we'll need to do. I haven't looked at shadow
> to see what kind of finessing is required though...
>
> Does opkg have any notion of bitbake's ASSUME_PROVIDED?
Not explicitly, but the same mechanism that we use
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 22:59 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> The latter sounds like what we'll need to do. I haven't looked at shadow
> to see what kind of finessing is required though...
Fixing the immediate problem with shadow turned out to be rather
straightforward, see attached. However, with t
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 10:50 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 22:59 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > The latter sounds like what we'll need to do. I haven't looked at shadow
> > to see what kind of finessing is required though...
>
> Fixing the immediate problem with shadow turne
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 15:03 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> Seriously, does opkg have the logic in it to run this stuff? If so
> perhaps we need to teach opkg about offline postinstalls since it should
> already know about dependencies?
Yeah, that might be a sensible plan. I'm not entirely sure th
On 9/2/11 1:43 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 15:03 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> Seriously, does opkg have the logic in it to run this stuff? If so
>> perhaps we need to teach opkg about offline postinstalls since it should
>> already know about dependencies?
>
> Yeah, that mi
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 12:53 -0700, Scott Garman wrote:
> This adds a -native recipe for the shadow utilities.
>
> The custom --root option allows the the following utilities to be
> run within a chroot when invoked under pseudo:
Rather than patching the code for all these utilities, can't you jus
On 01/06/11 10:47, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 12:53 -0700, Scott Garman wrote:
>> This adds a -native recipe for the shadow utilities.
>>
>> The custom --root option allows the the following utilities to be
>> run within a chroot when invoked under pseudo:
>
> Rather than patchin
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 13:34 +0100, Martyn Welch wrote:
> On 01/06/11 10:47, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 12:53 -0700, Scott Garman wrote:
> >> This adds a -native recipe for the shadow utilities.
> >>
> >> The custom --root option allows the the following utilities to be
> >> run
On 06/01/2011 02:47 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 12:53 -0700, Scott Garman wrote:
This adds a -native recipe for the shadow utilities.
The custom --root option allows the the following utilities to be
run within a chroot when invoked under pseudo:
Rather than patching the co
On 6/1/11 12:43 PM, Scott Garman wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 02:47 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 12:53 -0700, Scott Garman wrote:
>>> This adds a -native recipe for the shadow utilities.
>>>
>>> The custom --root option allows the the following utilities to be
>>> run within a chroot
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 16:05 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> The reason I suggested the --root option was primarily for the ease of people
> who are NOT using the automated scripting, i.e. someone manually adding a
> preinst (or similar) to their recipes.
I was thinking about this stuff the other day fo
21 matches
Mail list logo
