[Fedora-packaging] Re: Second user/group handling draft

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Hi!

Thx for the answers Axel!

On 11.05.2007 12:00, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 08:36:32AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 10.05.2007 22:38, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 25 April 2007, I wrote:
>>>
>>>> The first draft about user and group handling (creation etc) is ready for
>>>> discussion: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsersAndGroups
>>> As noted in this week's FPC meeting minutes, the draft is probably going to be 
>>> voted on next week.  A more fleshed out and cleaned up version which also 
>>> takes into account some findings in the FPC meeting as well as other feedback 
>>> on -maintainers is now online.  Comments still welcome.
>> Thx for writing this up; some comments (if they were discussed already
>> then sorry for the noise):
>> ----
>> I'd like to see clarifications somewhere for which existing branches we
>> applies this/what it means to existing packages that use some magic
>> tools to create users and groups currently.
> Just as any guideline, they apply to all, and packages will need to
> conform within a reasonable timeframe. It will most certainly
> practically not apply anymore to FC5, since this will go EOL almost
> the next day this guideline may have gotten through all instances.

Side note: Who makes sure stuff gets enforced? FESCO and EPEL SIG? It
generally seems to me hat some of the package guideline changes don't
get applied to existing packages (or only the devel branch) because no
one enforces them. The FPC, FESCO and EPEL SIG probably need to work
something out together to improve that in the future. Especially for
EPEL due to it's long life-time things might get complicated if we
enforce new rules to existing packages for released branches.

But that's a different discussion we probably should not open here and now.

>> Just wondering: Should we have some kind of "user/gid registry" in the
>> wiki to track packages that create users/groups?
> Maybe, but this would require the maintainer of "setup" to make
> painfully sure wiki and "setup" are always in sync. The moment this
> deviates we're in trouble, so if the maintainer(s) of setup can't
> commit to simultaneous edits of "setup" and wiki contents, we should
> better keep "setup" as the only authoritative source. Which can be
> easily checked from the cvs viewer online I guess, so packagers will
> be able to check rawhide allocation immediately.

Agreed. But sysadmins need to have a list of all possible users accounts
somewhere afaics, otherwise it will be hard for them to modify setup (or
am I missing something?). Maybe we could maintain such a list somewhere
inside the setup rpm or it's cvs?

Cu
knurd