remove fedora-usermgmt?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:47:34 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> Michael Schwendt schrieb:
> >
> > fedora-usermgmt is not about fixing something, but about adding a
> > feature. Well, that's my point of view. I'm not a hardcore advocate of
> > using it everywhere. But I don't understand why a simple EPEL steering
> > decision is wrapped into a crusade against an optional tool.
> 
> Mainly for two reasons afaics:
> 
> - Because the rules in EPEL imho should be as identical to the rules
> from Fedora as much as possible, as everything that differs between the
> two will make life harder for users and packagers (for example a package
> that currently uses fedora-usermgmt in Fedora could not simply be build
> for EPEL without adjustments)

Where are the useradd/fedora-useradd related rules of Fedora written down?

Where are the packagers and reviewers in this discussion, who have dealt
with fedora-useradd during review and during the life-time of their
packages?

Unless I've missed something, fedora-usermgmt is purely optional.
Why are 34 uids for it in the registry in the Wiki?

> - Because having a tool like fedora-usermgmt that solves a particular
> problem is IMHO not worth much, if half of the Fedora packages use it,
> while the other half doesn't

That's not my problem. If EPEL management doesn't consider fedora-usermgmt
ready enough or doesn't see any need in it or doesn't want the feature,
they are free to disallow using it, aren't they? Occasionally, the people
in committee positions need to take responsibility for such decisions.
I've said more than once that the full power of fedora-usermgmt isn't
pretty. Just for the record, when I maintained the official Fedora wesnoth
package for some time, I've used plain useradd because it was appropriate
and sufficient. The reason I still reply in this thread is because there
are false accusations and the refusal to analyse fedora-usermgmt at a
technical level before judging about it.